Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #253442; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Zahra and Schuette; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for plaintiffs in their action for uninsured motorist benefits, finding that a letter from defendant’s adjuster unequivocally gave plaintiff Secura’s consent to settle as required under the terms of the insured’s no-fault policy. The policy in this case required that in order to be entitled to uninsured benefits, the insured must have obtained written consent to settle. Plaintiffs settled after receipt of the following letter from defendant’s claims representative, “It was my understanding pursuant to our conversation that you may engage in settlement discussions regarding the dram shop issues. Please be advised that our Subrogation [sic] rights against the dram shop and owner/driver of the at fault motor vehicle must be preserved at all times. Should any settlement be negotiated with the dram shop and at fault owner/driver for less than $100,000 [sic] our subrogation must be expressly preserved. Secura Insurance in no way will waive its right of subrogation against the dram shop carriers or owner/driver of [sic] vehicle.” In affirming, the Court of Appeals agreed that the letter was a consent to settlement. In so ruling, the court stated:
“As opposed to merely recognizing that plaintiff may engage in settlement negotiations with the dram shop defendants, the letter plainly indicates that defendant would accept any settlement so long as its subrogation rights were protected. . . . We cannot conclude that the trial court erred in finding the letter provides sufficient written consent to settle.”
