Independent. No paid rankings. Pass or fail is never for sale. Where a provider passes our review, we may link to it with a disclosed affiliate link.Reviewed as findings changeEditorial policyNewsletter
The Warranty RecordAn independent record of home warranty, auto, and other warranty providers — US & Canada

Last reviewed: 9 October 2026

Home › Guides › Michigan service contract regulation

United States

Michigan excluded service contracts from its insurance code by name in 2014

Like our Pennsylvania page covers, Michigan is another state whose insurance code excludes a service contract from regulation directly, rather than routing it through a licensing chapter. Michigan's version is newer — added in 2014 — and it isn't quite the only product-specific rule on the books: a much older, much narrower Consumer Protection Act provision from 1979 survives alongside it.

Correction (9 October 2026): this page previously said that Michigan imposes no license, registration, reserve, reimbursement-insurance or bond requirement, that a shopper cannot verify a claims-paying mechanism against a state requirement, and that the exemption imposes no content or disclosure requirements "at all." It now says only what the exemption provision itself does, and that other Michigan laws may apply. The page also previously said the exemption expressly extends to a motor vehicle service contract including towing and emergency road service; it now describes how the definition reaches vehicle contracts, and an unsupported aside about the 1979 strike clause was removed.

MCL 500.125: added in 2014, one sentence of substance

Section 125 of Michigan's Insurance Code of 1956, added by 2014 PA 110 (effective April 10, 2014), states plainly: "A service contract is not insurance or the business of insurance and is not subject to this act." The section defines "service contract" in the same broad, two-product way Pennsylvania's exemption does — a written contract, sold for separately stated consideration, for a specific duration, providing repair, replacement, or maintenance of a "consumer product" (tangible personal property, including property intended for attachment to or installation in real property) due to operational or structural failure, damage, or normal wear and tear, and, through a consumer-product definition plus specific motor-vehicle items (tire and wheel, dent repair, windshield, key, additive), reaching vehicle contracts too. One 2014 amendment, one exemption, both a home warranty and a vehicle service contract covered.

The one specific rule that predates the exemption by 35 years

Section 3a of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCL 445.903a), added by 1979 PA 150, requires a home appliance service contract to contain a specific clause: if performance of the contract is interrupted by a strike or work stoppage at the company's place of business, the contract's effective period must be extended for the length of that interruption. It's a narrow, single-purpose content mandate, not a licensing or financial-backing requirement. It's also the closest thing Michigan law has to a home-warranty-specific consumer protection that this page identifies, since the 2014 insurance exemption, as this page reads it, does not itself set content or disclosure requirements.

An exemption, not a licensing track

Because the provision is framed as an exemption from the insurance act, it does not itself set up the kind of license, provider registration or funded-claims mechanism that point 3 and point 4 of our standard check for elsewhere, and this page identifies no such Michigan requirement; other Michigan laws not covered here may still apply.

What actually protects a Michigan buyer

The general-purpose backstop is the Michigan Consumer Protection Act itself (MCL 445.901 et seq.), which prohibits unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in trade or commerce and is enforced by the Michigan Attorney General. It also gives a consumer a private right of action under MCL 445.911(2): a person who suffers loss can recover actual damages or $250, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney's fees, with the court able to award up to three times actual damages for willful conduct. That 1979 strike-extension clause aside, this general MCPA remedy — not a service-contract-specific state license or bond — is what a Michigan buyer is actually relying on.

A 35-year gap between the two rules that actually apply: the only Michigan statute written specifically for a home appliance service contract (1979) predates the statute that formally excludes the whole product category from insurance regulation (2014) by 35 years — worth knowing if you assume a newer law replaced an older one here. Both are still separately on the books today.

References

  1. Michigan Compiled Laws § 500.125 (Insurance Code of 1956, Act 218 of 1956), added by 2014 PA 110, effective April 10, 2014 — service contract exclusion from the Insurance Code and definitions of "consumer product" and "service contract."
  2. Michigan Compiled Laws § 445.903a (Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Act 331 of 1976), added by 1979 PA 150 — required strike/work-stoppage extension clause for a home appliance service contract.
  3. Michigan Compiled Laws § 445.901 et seq. and § 445.911(2) (Michigan Consumer Protection Act) — general prohibition on unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive trade practices; private right of action for actual damages or $250, whichever is greater.

What you can do next

Related