Action seeking personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits for healthcare services provided to an insured; Discharge of an insurer’s liability; MCL 500.3112; Covenant Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

[This opinion was previously released as an unpublished opinion on 4/23/20.] The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for defendant-insurer on plaintiff-healthcare provider’s claim for PIP benefits. In the underlying action, defendant’s insured (A) sought PIP benefits for injuries he sustained in an auto accident. He later executed an assignment of benefits for plaintiff. The underlying litigation eventually settled and the parties signed a release. Meanwhile, plaintiff filed this action against defendant, seeking reimbursement for services it provided to A following the accident. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the release only applied to the specific claims A included in the underlying litigation, and any reference to all claims in the release created an ambiguity. “While the settlement may have arisen out of the claims made in the litigation, i.e., a claim for PIP benefits, it clearly and unambiguously released all claims, past, present, and future.” Moreover, A “explicitly agreed to pay all unpaid medical expenses from the settlement.” As the trial court concluded, “there is no way to read the release in any other manner.” The court also agreed with both the trial court and defendant that plaintiff’s claim was barred by MCL 500.3112. In sum, A “entered into a settlement which release[d] all claims, past, present, and future that he had against defendant and agreed to pay all medical bills arising from the accident from the settlement.” Moreover, he failed to provide any “evidence that a written copy of the assignment was ever provided to defendant before the settlement agreement was entered into.” Affirmed.