Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 307856; Unpublished
Judges Riordan, Hoekstra, and O’Connell; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court held that the plaintiff’s claim against her no-fault insurer for a wheel chair lift was barred by a settlement and release agreement because the release agreement unambiguously limited future claims to charges for "healthcare medical services” and neither the wheelchair lift itself nor its installation is a “healthcare medical service.”
The plaintiff in this case entered into a settlement and release agreement with defendant State Farm. Under the agreement, the plaintiff waived the right to receive all future no-fault benefits except for “any claims under MCL 500.3107(a) for reasonable charges for reasonably necessary healthcare medical services.” Sometime thereafter, the plaintiff made claim against State Farm for a wheelchair lift, which State Farm denied arguing that the claim was barred by the release agreement.
To determine whether plaintiff’s claim was barred under the release, the Court examined the language of the release agreement itself, under which the plaintiff waived the right to:
“all claims for no-fault benefits that have been incurred or that may be incurred in the future, with the exception of any claims under MCL 500.3107(a) for reasonable charges for reasonably necessary healthcare medical services.”
Based on the foregoing language, the Court concluded that the release “unambiguously limits future claims to charges for ‘healthcare medical services.’” The Court then held that “[n]either the wheelchair lift itself nor its installation is a ‘healthcare medical service.’ Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim was barred because it was “not within the scope of the exception in the parties’ release.”