Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP) benefits payable limit; MCL 500.3172(7)(a); Settlement enforcement; MCR 2.507(G); Dabish v Gayar; Contract formation; Meeting of minds; Kamalnath v Mercy Mem’l Hosp Corp; Offer & acceptance; Kloian v Domino’s Pizza LLC; Conditional acceptance; Harper Bldg Co v Kaplan; Settlement negotiation e-mails; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion to enforce a purported settlement because the parties never reached a binding settlement agreement. Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought PIP benefits from defendant-insurer after the MACP assigned his claim. The insurer had paid some benefits, leaving $199,145 in potential exposure under the statutory cap. During settlement discussions, plaintiff’s counsel described the proposed agreement as a “contingent/tentative settlement” because of a “massive Medicare lien,” the parties exchanged draft releases, and no release or stipulated order was signed. After CMS sought payment from the insurer, the insurer revoked all settlement offers, and the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to enforce. On appeal, the court held that plaintiff failed to show a meeting of the minds because his conditional acceptance was not absolute and unconditional. The proposed settlement would become binding only upon Medicare’s approval of the lien reduction, but the evidence of that approval was dated after the insurer “unequivocally withdrew its offer.” The court also held that the e-mails did not satisfy MCR 2.507(G) because the ongoing edits to the release showed the parties had not memorialized their agreement “in a form that indisputably reflects a final agreement of the parties.” Counsel never responded to the final email asking whether the release was acceptable and requesting a signature. Affirmed.