Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 177470; Unpublished
Judges Taylor, Markey, and Holowka; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General / Miscellaneous [§3107]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Release and Settlements
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that waiver of future claims for no-fault benefits must be specific to be enforceable.
Plaintiff was injured in a 1990 automobile accident, after which Auto Club began paying no-fault benefits. In 1991, an action was brought in which plaintiff sought entitlement to 24 hour unskilled nursing care, wage loss benefits, replacement services and other personal protection insurance benefits. That lawsuit was dismissed on March 16,1992 pursuant to a voluntary dismissal. After the dismissal was entered, Auto Club continued paying the same no-fault benefits that it had previously paid. In June, 1992, Auto Club notified plaintiff that it was terminating home care benefits, and thereafter, a subsequent lawsuit was filed seeking these benefits as well as other
In response to the lawsuit, Auto Club brought a motion for summary disposition alleging res adjudicata based on the previous action. The trial court ruled that the voluntary dismissal of the defendant's first lawsuit was res adjudicata as to plaintiffs second lawsuit.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the critical analysis was whether the claims in the current lawsuit were resolved in the first case. Although plaintiff argued that the order that dismissed the first lawsuit was not res adjudicata as to the current lawsuit, because in the first lawsuit they asserted only a narrow claim for 24 hour unskilled nursing benefits and not a claim for the broader benefits sought in the current lawsuit, the Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the original lawsuit encompassed all of the claims being made in the second lawsuit. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was improperly granted because the order of dismissal in the first case was not clear as to whether or not it was intended to indicate that future claims were considered part of the dismissal. Any waiver of future claims must be specific in accordance with Lewis v Aetna Casualty Company, 109 Mich App 136 (1981). Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed grant of summary disposition and reinstated plaintiffs claim with reference to no-fault benefits incurred after March 9, 1992.
