Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 327699; Unpublished
Judges Riordan, Saad, and Markey; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Handicapper Motor Vehicles [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a vehicle accord and satisfaction (VAS) agreement, the Court of Appeals held the agreement was unclear as to whether the insurer had to purchase a modified van every six years for plaintiff, and so the matter had to be remanded to the trial court to determine the intent of the parties when they entered into the VAS.
Plaintiff was rendered paraplegic in a 2004 auto accident and sought coverage under her mother's no-fault policy with defendant, Citizens Insurance Company. Plaintiff ultimately brought an action against Citizens seeking benefits, and the parties entered into a VAS agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, Citizens purchased plaintiff a modified van in 2006. In 2013, plaintiff filed a claim with Citizens for a replacement van. Citizens denied the claim, asserting the VAS agreement did not require it to purchase a replacement van. Plaintiff then filed suit against Citizens, pointing to paragraph 3 of the VAS agreement, which she asserted required Citizens to purchase a modified van every six years. Paragraph 3 of the VAS agreement said: "3. It is further agreed that subsequent to purchase of additional vehicles in accordance with the provisions of this agreement, CICA will not be obligated to consider the purchase and/or modification of any additional vehicles for a period of 6 years, and no claim shall be made for the purchase or lease of substitute transportation for the undersigned before one or the other stipulation is met." Citizens argued, however, that it had fulfilled its obligations under the VAS agreement and that, after six years passed, it only had to consider a claim for a new van, which it did. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary disposition, ordering Citizens to purchase plaintiff a new modified passenger van.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the language of the VAS agreement did not clearly require that Citizens indefinitely buy the claimant a new van every six years.
In so holding, the Court of Appeals relied on basic contract principles, including that the words of a contract must be given their plain and ordinary meanings. The Court reviewed paragraph 3 of the VAS agreement and said:
"It does appear that the contract contemplates the purchase of additional vehicles, but the plain language includes no indication that defendant was required to purchase a new vehicle. Rather, the sentence specifically states that defendant will not be obligated to consider the purchase of an additional vehicle for a period of six years subsequent to the purchase of additional vehicles in accordance with this agreement."
According to the Court of Appeals, the VAS agreement only required Citizens to "think about" purchasing a new van for six years following the purchase of the first van.
The Court of Appeals further held the VAS agreement was ambiguous in several respects and, because the intent of the parties was unclear, the trial court should not have ruled as matter of law in favor of plaintiff.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals remanded the case and instructed the trial court to determine:
• whether Citizens must purchase a replacement van under the terms of the VAS agreement, and
• if Citizens must purchase another van, whether the van must be reasonably necessary for plaintiff's medically related transportation needs under MCL 500.3107(1)(a).
