Breach of contract action to recover personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Principle that fraud claims against insurers are not subject to the no-fault one-year-back rule; MCL 500.3145(1); Cooper v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n; Whether a release of liability is valid; Genesee Foods Servs., Inc. v. Meadowbrook, Inc.; Principle that an agreement to settle a pending lawsuit is a contract; Reicher v. SET Enters., Inc.; Affect of the words “any & all” in a release; Dresden v. Detroit Macomb Hosp. Corp.; Heritage Res., Inc. v. Caterpillar Fin. Serv. Corp.

The court held that the trial court did not err by dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs’ claim seeking PIP benefits from defendant-insurer. Plaintiffs sued defendant seeking PIP benefits for the care of their daughter, who suffered serious injuries when she was struck by a motor vehicle while crossing the street. The trial court granted defendant summary disposition and dismissed plaintiffs’ lawsuit because a release precluded them from asserting further claims against defendant. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court erred by dismissing their fraud claim because the release did not bar it and Cooper permitted it. It noted that because the release was unambiguous the trial court had to enforce it as written according to its plain and ordinary terms. The release “plainly required plaintiffs to release and forever discharge [defendant] from any and all actions, causes of action, claims, demands, damages, costs, loss of services, expenses and/or compensation in any way related to” the accident, and “in no way excluded any claims from release or preserved any claims that preexisted the date on which plaintiffs executed” it. It also “necessarily included the claims asserted in plaintiffs’ [current] complaint related to [defendant’s] alleged breach of contract and claims stemming from the alleged . . . misrepresentation regarding payment of PIP benefits to plaintiffs that duplicated payments made by their medical insurer.” Finally, the court found that “[b]ecause this case presents a distinctly different issue, Cooper is inapposite. Cooper never discussed or decided the issue presented in this case and plainly does not stand for the proposition that a claim released under the broad terms of a release may be raised despite having been waived and released by contract.” Affirmed.