Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #270162; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Markey, and Wilder; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Workers Disability Compensation Act
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant City of Detroit, a self-funded no-fault insurer, on plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits, finding that a release plaintiff signed in connection with his workers’ compensation claim also released defendant from all liabilities including its liabilities under the No-Fault Act.
The plaintiff in this case was a bus driver employed by the City of Detroit. Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving the bus during the course of his employment. In exchange for a monetary award, plaintiff released his workers’ compensation claim. The release provided, in part:
“In consideration and receipt of the settlement, the employee . . . fully releases and discharges his employer City of Detroit, . . . from any and all liabilities, claims, causes of actions, including but not limited to any tort action, civil rights, handicapped claims, wrongful discharge claims, and any other claims arising out of and in the course of employment, . . .”
Subsequently, plaintiff filed a breach of contract action seeking no-fault benefits. The trial court granted defendant summary disposition, finding that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the release. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the terms of the release, which covered “any and all liabilities, claims” or “other causes of action” arising out of the course of his employment was clear and unambiguous and included plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits. In this regard, the court stated:
“The scope of the release in this matter is not ambiguous. The release clearly covers ‘any and all liabilities, claims’ or ‘causes of action,’ including tort actions that arise ‘out of and in the course of employment.’ That language encompasses plaintiff’s no-fault claim. The word ‘all’ is the broadest of classifications that leaves no room for exceptions. . . . And, it cannot be disputed that the cause of action arose out of and in the course of plaintiff’s employment. Under the workers’ compensation statute, MCL 418.301(1), which grants employees compensation for personal injuries ‘arising out of and in the course of their employment,’ an employee is granted the right to compensation when the nexus between the employee’s injury and employment is sufficient to assume that the injury was a circumstance of the employment. . . . It is apparent that, when the accident occurred in this case, plaintiff was engaged in his duties driving a bus for the City of Detroit. Therefore, plaintiff’s no-fault claim was a liability based upon an injury from the work itself. It arose out of and in the course of his employment and was covered by the release. Plaintiff argues that he never intended to relinquish his right to pursue no-fault claims as part of his redemption agreement, and that the release should not cover no-fault claims because it was created as part of a workers’ compensation redemption agreement. . . . As mentioned above, there can be no broader classification than the word ‘all,’ which leaves no room for exceptions. . . . The release did not contain exceptions for no-fault claims, or any other type of claim. Because the text of the release was clear, the parties’ intentions must be ascertained from the plain, ordinary meaning of the language of the release.”
