complicated the calculation of his years of credited service, Plaintiff sought clarification of those calculations from the company representative at the retirement interview. The company representative assured Plaintiff that the calculation of his years of credited service was correct. The Overpayment Notice, however, clearly states that the very calculations that the company representative assured Plaintiff were correct at the retirement interview were in fact miscalculated. The Court finds that the company representative’s assurances, which were a crucial aspect of Plaintiffs decision to retire effective July 1, 2009, were so grossly negligent as to amount to constructive fraud upon Plaintiff. See Teisman v. United Omaha Life Ins. Co., 908 F.Supp.2d 875, 887 (W.D.Mich.2012) (<HOLDING>); Krause v. Ohio Operating Engineers-Pension,
holding that a providers false assurances that a beneficiarys insurance coverage continued may constitute gross negligence holding that negligence does not violate the due process clause but reserving the question whether gross negligence does holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action holding that dawson proscribes gross negligence holding that an insurance agent who does not procure the insurance coverage requested breaches his or her duty suggesting a negligence claim