e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 85979
Opinion Date : 06/16/2026
e-Journal Date : 07/06/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Zaki Anesthesia, PLLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Practice Area(s) : Healthcare Law Insurance
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Trebilcock, Boonstra, and Letica
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

No-fault insurance; Personal injury protection (PIP) benefits; Medical provider claim; MCL 500.3112; Settlement agreement; Release; Future benefits; Michigan Head & Spine Inst, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co; Consideration; Real party in interest; C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive MI Ins Co; Accrual; Andary v USAA Cas Ins Co

Summary

The court held that the trial court properly granted defendant-insurer partial summary disposition because the claimant’s settlement agreement and release barred plaintiff-provider’s later claim for PIP benefits incurred after the release. The claimant (J) sued defendant for no-fault benefits, received a zero verdict, and then executed a settlement agreement releasing defendant from past, present, and future PIP-related medical claims except for listed entities that did not include plaintiff. On appeal, the court first held that the release was unambiguous because it waived all J’s “rights to future PIP benefits, which necessarily extinguished plaintiff’s right to those benefits.” The court next held that the agreement did not fail for lack of consideration because an agreement to dismiss “claims ‘furnishes good consideration,’” and defendant’s promise to forgo posttrial and appellate practice supported the release. The court also held that plaintiff lost real-party-in-interest status because defendant was entitled to protection from “different parties asserting the same cause of action,” and the earlier trial had already addressed whether the accident related to the medical services. Finally, the court held that expenses incurred after the release were not payable under MCL 500.3112 because J “released any interest that she had to such benefits before incurring the expense,” meaning she was “no longer insured” for later accident-related expenses under the release’s terms. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion