ELIZABETH FERGUSON v. METLIFE INVESTORS USA INSURANCE COMPANY, aka Brighthouse Life Insurance Company - Articles

All Content

ELIZABETH FERGUSON v. METLIFE INVESTORS USA INSURANCE COMPANY, aka Brighthouse Life Insurance Company

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Feb 20, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Adam B. Kutinsky, KUTINSKY, PLLC, Birmingham, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Mark D. Taticchi, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Adam B. Kutinsky, Sarah Beth Wykoff, KUTINSKY, PLLC, Birmingham, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Moheeb H. Murray, BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC, Troy, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): GRIFFIN, THAPAR, and HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Under Michigan law, an insurer may rescind a life-insurance policy if the applicant makes a material misrepresentation when applying for coverage. Ewanda Ferguson (Ewanda)materially misrepresented her driving history when applying for life insurance through defendant MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company a/k/a Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (Brighthouse). Brighthouse therefore rescinded the policy and refused to pay any death benefit to plaintiff Elizabeth Ferguson (Ferguson), the beneficiary under the policy. Ferguson sued, asserting that she was an “innocent third party” under Michigan law and, thus, entitled to equitable balancing before the policy could be rescinded. The district court disagreed, ordered rescission, and granted summary judgment in favor of Brighthouse. We affirm.

Attachments: