Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #282678; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, Kelly, and Beckering; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Obligation of Motorcycle Owner / Registrant to Insure Motorcycles [3103]
General / Miscellaneous [3107]
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Release and Settlements
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals determined that even though plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with defendant’s predecessor which provided that settlement of his tort claim would not bar his right to seek personal injury protection benefits, this release did not obligate defendant to continue paying benefits when it discovered that plaintiff was never entitled to benefits because his motorcycle was not insured as required by MCL 500.3103 at the time of the accident.
In 1986, the plaintiff was seriously injured while riding his uninsured motorcycle when he was hit by a motor vehicle insured by defendant’s predecessor, Maryland Casualty Company. The plaintiff’s attorney negotiated a settlement from the at-fault driver in exchange for a release from any other claim “except claims for personal protection insurance benefits (Michigan ‘No-Fault’ benefits) under MCL 500.3107. . . .” Under the no-fault policy, plaintiff received PIP benefits until 2006, when Farmers discontinued payment because plaintiff did not have insurance for the motorcycle as required by §3103 at the time of the accident.
Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, in which he admitted he was not entitled to benefits under §3113(b), but argued he was entitled to benefits by virtue of the settlement agreement.
In finding that defendant was entitled to summary disposition, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the plain language of the release did not create an obligation for defendant to pay PIP benefits forever. Instead, the court found that although the agreement would not bar plaintiff from seeking benefits, it did not guarantee that benefits would be paid. Therefore, when defendant determined that plaintiff was not entitled to receive benefits, it had no obligation to continue paying benefits. In this regard, the court stated:
“The plain language of the release does not permit an interpretation that the settlement of the tort claim created an obligation on the part of defendant to forever pay PIP benefits. The agreement released all claims arising from the accident ‘except for claims for personal protection insurance benefits (Michigan “No-Fault” benefits) under MCL 500.3107.’ While the release certainly provides that plaintiff is not barred from making a claim for no-fault first-party benefits, it does not guarantee that such benefits would be paid. Plaintiff concedes he does not qualify for benefits under the no-fault act. The exclusion of claims for PIP benefits from the scope of the release did not create an affirmative duty on the part of defendant to continue to pay benefits to plaintiff after the discovery that plaintiff did not qualify for them.”
