be characterized as sounding in breach of contract. Such a claim would have to be founded on defendants’ breach of a contract with Fritz to secure insurance that would cover his work in other states. Although the Supreme Court has described “the relationship between the insurer and insured” as “a contractual one,” Harts v Farmers Ins Exch, 461 Mich 1, 7; 597 NW2d 47 (1999), it has not held that the provision of negligent advice or the negligent procurement of insurance may support a claim for breach of contract. Rather, this Court has characterized an insurance agent’s failure to procure requested insurance as a tort. Holton v A + Ins Assoc, Inc, 255 Mich App 318, 324-325; 661 NW2d 248 (2003). See also Zaremba Equip, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co, 280 Mich App 16, 37-38; 761 NW2d 151 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the six-year statute of
holding that an agent breaches its duty to use reasonable care and diligence in procuring insurance when it fails to provide an insurance policy that covers the contents of the insureds business as the insured had requested holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim holding that insurance certificate holder could not maintain negligence action against insurer when certificate holder was not insurers customer did not discuss insurance coverage with insurer and did not make any specific request to procure insurance coverage holding that insurance agents owe no duty to procure coverage for persons with no written or oral agreement with the agent to procure coverage or who have never contacted the agent about insurance coverage holding that an insurance agent who does not procure the insurance coverage requested breaches his or her duty suggesting a negligence claim