3D Imaging Services LLC v. McLaren Inc, 333100

3D Imaging (plaintiff) agreed to perform 3D laser scanning and deliver an AutoCAD (2010) LOD 100 point‑cloud-based model (.dwg) of two motel buildings and a cabin for McLaren (defendant). Contract price $2,225; $445 paid, $1,780 balance.
Plaintiff delivered a .dwg AutoCAD file. McLaren’s president said he could not manipulate the delivered file as he expected and argued he had requested a 2D drawing; he refused to pay the balance.
Plaintiff contended the contract expressly required 3D scanning and modeling, and that the delivered .dwg could be converted or viewed in 2D. Plaintiff’s witnesses demonstrated viewing the file in 2D.
District court held the contract clearly required a 3D model, found plaintiff performed, and awarded $1,780 plus $2,000 in attorney fees and costs.
The circuit court reversed, finding the contract ambiguous about whether the delivered “model” was 2D or 3D and entered judgment for defendant for $455 (the retainer).
The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court, holding the contract unambiguous (3D) and that plaintiff performed; remanded for determination of attorney fees and costs on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the contract ambiguous as to whether the delivered "model" had to be 2D or 3D?	Contract language plainly requires 3D scanning and modeling; not ambiguous.	Parties disputed meaning of “model”; defendant says he expected 2D and contract was silent, creating ambiguity.	Contract unambiguous: language ("3D laser scanning", "3D modeling", "three‑dimensional environment") requires 3D model.
Did plaintiff breach the contract by not providing a 2D drawing?	No; plaintiff delivered the required 3D .dwg and the file can be viewed/converted to 2D.	Yes; plaintiff failed to provide the 2D product defendant says he requested.	No breach by plaintiff; plaintiff performed and defendant breached by withholding payment.
Was defendant’s ambiguity argument preserved below?	N/A — plaintiff argued issue not raised below.	Defendant presented testimony about its expectation of a 2D model, sufficient to raise meaning dispute.	Court: parties’ conflicting testimony over “model” functioned as an ambiguity argument; issue was preserved.
Is plaintiff entitled to contract attorney fees and costs (including appellate fees)?	Yes; contract authorized fees/costs; district court awarded fees but circuit court did not address appellate fees.	N/A (circuit court did not resolve fees).	Remanded to circuit court to determine entitlement/amount of fees and costs, including appellate fees.

Redmond v. Van Buren County, 293 Mich. App. 344 (standard of review for bench-trial findings) (discusses review for clear error and de novo law review)
Coates v. Bastian Bros., Inc., 276 Mich. App. 498 (contract interpretation reviewed de novo)
Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enterprise, 487 Mich. 102 (appellate courts should not override factual credibility findings)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. G‑Tech Prof. Staffing, Inc., 260 Mich. App. 183 (contract interpretation principles)
In re Smith Trust, 480 Mich. 19 (unambiguous contractual language enforced as written)
Raska v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Mich., 412 Mich. 355 (definition of ambiguity: reasonably susceptible to different meanings)
Hellebuyck v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of Mich., 262 Mich. App. 250 (inartful wording that admits one interpretation is not ambiguous)
Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Masters, 460 Mich. 105 (courts may not create ambiguity when terms are clear)
Auto‑Owners Ins. Co. v. Churchman, 440 Mich. 560 (contract construed as a whole; give meaning to all terms)
Miller‑Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr., Inc., 495 Mich. 161 (elements required to prove breach of contract)
Old Kent Bank v. Sobczak, 243 Mich. App. 57 (performance measured against contract’s plain terms)