Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #266797; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Fitzgerald, and Owens; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court order dismissing plaintiffs’ claim to set aside a settlement agreement involving uninsured motorist benefits, finding that the agreement was enforceable.
The plaintiffs in this case were injured in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured driver. On May 22, 2005, plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement in open court with their insurer, Nationwide, for uninsured motorist benefits. As stated by plaintiffs’ attorney, the plaintiffs “have agreed to settle their uninsured motorists claims only against defendant Nationwide for a one time prompt payment of $10,000 and a waiver of any and all unpaid or outstanding costs or sanctions awarded in this case to Nationwide.” (emphasis in original)
On May 31, 2005, plaintiffs moved to set the agreement aside, asserting that they believed Nationwide was obligated to pay personal injury protection insurance benefits as part of the settlement. The trial court denied the motion and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous, made in open court, and also involved uninsured motorist benefits. Nothing in the record indicated that the agreement affected plaintiffs’ rights to pursue PIP benefits after the agreement involving the uninsured benefits was entered into. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiffs argue that there was no meeting of the minds in this case because plaintiffs believed that, under the terms of the settlement agreement, defendant would not only pay them $10,000, but also would pay PIP benefits to them. However, the record reflects that the parties clearly and unambiguously agreed to settle plaintiffs’ claims, under the uninsured motorist provision of the insurance policy only, for $10,000. A party’s ‘intention must be gathered not from what a party now says he then thought but from the contract itself.’. . . In the present suit plaintiff was not seeking the payment of PIP benefits. The settlement agreement was silent regarding the payment of PIP benefits. Nothing in the record indicates that the agreement affected plaintiffs’ rights to pursue PIP benefits under the insurance policy after the agreement was entered. In fact, both parties conceded below that the present case did not involve any issues regarding the payment of PIP benefits but, rather, involved only a claim for benefits under the insurance policy’s uninsured motorist provision. The record clearly supports a finding that there was a meeting of the minds regarding the essential terms of the settlement agreement. Moreover, the express words of the parties’ attorneys as recited on the record indicate that the parties agreed to accept the terms of the unambiguous agreement.”
(emphasis in original)
