State RegulationsMI specificDifficulty 3/5
Which Michigan scenario is governed by the defamation provision (M.C.L. 500.2009) rather than the false information and advertising provision (M.C.L. 500.2007)?
Select an option to reveal the answer and the full 3-part explanation — free, no signup.
Answer & full 3-part explanation (select an option above, or peek)
Why B is correct
M.C.L. 500.2009 of the Michigan Insurance Code targets defamatory statements — false or maliciously critical attacks on another person, especially a competitor, typically about its financial condition. The flyer attacking the rival insurer's financial soundness is an attack on a competitor, which is defamation territory, whereas M.C.L. 500.2007 and the advertising rules (R 500.651 to R 500.669 and R 500.1371 to R 500.1387) govern false or misleading statements about the speaker's own products.
Why the other options are wrong
- A) Exaggerating the benefits of the insurer's own policy is false advertising about the speaker's own product, governed by M.C.L. 500.2007 and the advertising rules.
- C) Misstating the waiting period in the insurer's own plan is a misleading statement about its own product, an M.C.L. 500.2007 matter rather than defamation.
- D) Omitting a scheduled premium increase makes the insurer's own advertisement misleading, which is false advertising, not a maliciously critical statement about a competitor.
Memory hook
Attacking a rival = defamation; puffing your own product = false advertising.