Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #252018; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, Murphy and Cavanagh; 2-1 (Judge Murphy dissenting); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Release and Settlements
Underinsured Motorist Benefits: Underinsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for Auto Owners, finding that a release plaintiff executed with respect to several defendants also released Auto Owners from any duty to pay plaintiff underinsured motorist benefits. In exchange for $5,000, plaintiff agreed to release two defendants and “‘all other persons, firms, employers, corporations, associations or partnerships of and from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, liens, demands, rights, damages, costs, loss of service, expenses and compensation whatsoever, which the undersigned now have or which may hereafter accrue on account of or in any way growing out of any and all known and unknown, foreseen and unforeseen bodily and personal injuries and property damage and the consequences thereof resulting or to result from the accident. . . .’” In affirming summary disposition for defendant, the Court of Appeals first noted the broad language of the release. It then ruled that under Meridian Mutual Insurance Company v Mason-Dixon Lines, Inc, (On Remand), 242 Mich App 645 (2000), where it held that such broad language released the defendant in that case despite an affidavit expressing the contrary intent, the release also included Auto-Owners. In this regard, the court stated:
“Here, too, Auto-Owners falls within the plain meaning of the release’s broad language. Accordingly, we conclude that the release included Auto-Owners and operated to discharge any claims against it.”
The court also found that the trial court properly rejected plaintiff’s attempt to void the release because Auto Owners was a third party beneficiary of the release and relied on it before plaintiff attempted to nullify it. In this regard, the court explained:
“In exchange for $5,000, plaintiff agreed to ‘release, acquit and forever discharge’ defendant Fisher Fuel, Young and ‘all other persons, firms, employers, corporations, associations or partnerships’ from any and all present and future claims arising from the auto accident. Thus, the promise ran directly to Auto-Owners. As an intended third-party beneficiary of the release, it had the right to enforce its terms.”
