Clark v Al-Amin, 309 Mich. App. 387

Background

Plaintiff sued Progressive for denial of PIP and UIM benefits after two 2011 auto accidents and received shoulder surgery in May 2013.
On November 5, 2013 the parties executed a $78,000 "global" settlement by email, with the plaintiff's counsel expressly agreeing the PIP settlement covered "all benefits to date."
Three days later plaintiff's counsel received a $28,942 facility bill from Synergy for the May 2013 surgery and demanded the settlement exclude that charge, alleging he and plaintiff had not known of the facility bill.
Progressive refused payment for the Synergy invoice and moved to enforce the November 5 settlement as covering all PIP benefits incurred to that date; plaintiff argued the settlement could not include charges of which she lacked knowledge.
The trial court held the Synergy invoice was not part of the settlement and could be pursued separately; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the settlement unambiguously covered all PIP benefits incurred to date, including the Synergy charge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the November 5, 2013 settlement included the Synergy $28,942 facility charge	The settlement could not include the Synergy bill because plaintiff and counsel lacked knowledge of that specific charge when they agreed	The parties agreed to a global settlement covering all PIP benefits "to date," which necessarily included the May 2013 Synergy charge she incurred	Settlement encompassed all PIP benefits incurred to date; the Synergy charge is covered and trial court erred in excluding it
Whether a unilateral lack of knowledge by plaintiff constitutes mutual mistake to void a settlement	Plaintiff contends the settlement was intended to resolve only known claims; her ignorance of Synergy billing renders the agreement voidable	Settlement law requires mutual mistake, fraud, or duress to set aside an agreement; unilateral mistake or change of heart is insufficient	No mutual mistake: plaintiff's ignorance was unilateral and Progressive allegedly knew of the bill, so mutual mistake not shown
Whether opposing party or opposing counsel owed a duty to disclose claims to plaintiff before settlement	Plaintiff argues Progressive (or its counsel) should have notified her of the Synergy billing	Progressive contends no such duty exists; plaintiff's counsel had the professional obligation to identify and advise about unknown pre-settlement claims	Court rejects novel duty to adversary; disclosure obligation rests with plaintiff's counsel, not opposing party
Whether settlement language "all benefits to date" is ambiguous	Plaintiff argues the parties intended to settle a specific set of known benefits	Progressive relies on plain, unambiguous language of the email agreement covering all benefits incurred to date	Language is clear and unambiguous; enforce settlement as written

Key Cases Cited

Kloian v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, 273 Mich. App. 449 (court reviews contract existence and interpretation de novo)
Reicher v. SET Enterprises, Inc., 283 Mich. App. 657 (settlement agreements are contracts governed by contract rules)
McCoig Materials, LLC v. Galui Construction, Inc., 295 Mich. App. 684 (clear contract language must be enforced as written)
Streeter v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 340 Mich. 510 (settlements are final and set aside only for fraud, mutual mistake, or duress)
Kaftan v. Kaftan, 300 Mich. App. 661 (definition and requirement of mutual mistake)
Douglas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 492 Mich. 241 (elements for PIP benefits under MCL 500.3107)
Bombalski v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 247 Mich. App. 536 (when an insured "incurs" an expense under PIP law)
Shanafelt v. Allstate Ins. Co., 217 Mich. App. 625 (insured incurs expense when becoming legally liable for treatment)
Rose v. Rose, 289 Mich. App. 45 (party cannot avoid settlement because of mistaken assessment of consequences)