contractual clause in Michigan

2026“The contents of the complaint are accepted as true unless contradicted by documentation submitted by the movant.” Maiden, 461 Mich at 119 . “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2026“The contents of the complaint are accepted as true unless contradicted by documentation submitted by the movant.” Maiden, 461 Mich at 119 . “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2025“Questions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.” Id.

2024“Questions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.” McDonald v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 480 Mich 191, 197 ; 747 NW2d 811 (2008) (citation omitted).

2025“The proper interpretation of a contract and the legal effect of a contractual clause are questions of law that we review de novo.” Sherman-Nadiv v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 282 Mich App 75, 78 ; 761 NW2d 872 (2008).

2024GROSS MALFEASANCE Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it should find in favor of defendant city on the breach-of-contract claim if plaintiff committed “gross malfeasance,” which the trial court defined as “active misconduct” that is “very obvious and unacceptable.” We disagree.14 “The proper interpretation of a contract and the legal effect of a contractual clause are questions of law that we review de novo.” Sherman-Nadiv v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 282 Mich App 75, 78 ; 761 NW2d 872 (2008). 13 We acknowledge that the reference to Oliver North was br

2025“The proper interpretation of a contract and the legal effect of a contractual clause are questions of law that we review de novo.” Sherman-Nadiv v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 282 Mich App 75, 78 ; 761 NW2d 872 (2008).

2024GROSS MALFEASANCE Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it should find in favor of defendant city on the breach-of-contract claim if plaintiff committed “gross malfeasance,” which the trial court defined as “active misconduct” that is “very obvious and unacceptable.” We disagree.14 “The proper interpretation of a contract and the legal effect of a contractual clause are questions of law that we review de novo.” Sherman-Nadiv v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 282 Mich App 75, 78 ; 761 NW2d 872 (2008). 13 We acknowledge that the reference to Oliver North was br

2023Fodale v Waste Mgt of Mich, Inc, 271 Mich App 11, 16-17 ; 718 NW2d 827 (2006).

2023Fodale v Waste Mgt of Mich, Inc, 271 Mich App 11 , 16- 17; 718 NW2d 827 (2006).

2023Fodale v Waste Mgt of Mich, Inc, 271 Mich App 11, 16-17 ; 718 NW2d 827 (2006).

2023Fodale v Waste Mgt of Mich, Inc, 271 Mich App 11 , 16- 17; 718 NW2d 827 (2006).

2026“A contractual waiver of liability . . . serves to insulate against ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence.” Xu v Gay, 257 Mich App 263, 269 ; 668 NW2d 166 (2003).

2026“A contractual waiver of liability . . . serves to insulate against ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence.” Xu v Gay, 257 Mich App 263, 269 ; 668 NW2d 166 (2003).

2026“The contents of the complaint are accepted as true unless contradicted by documentation submitted by the movant.” Maiden, 461 Mich at 119 . “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2019Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Id. at 207, quoting Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).] Insurance policies are “subject to the same contract construction principles that apply to any other species of contract.” Rory, 473 Mich at 461 . “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are . . . reviewed de novo.” Id. at 464 . “[U]nless a contract provision violates law or one of the traditional

2023In McCoig Materials, LLC v Galui Constr, Inc, 295 Mich App 684, 694 ; 818 NW2d 410 (2012), this Court delineated the following principles governing contract law: “The essential elements of a contract are parties competent to contract, a proper subject matter, legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.” Issues regarding the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal -4- effect of a contractual clause are reviewed de novo.

2023In McCoig Materials, LLC v Galui Constr, Inc, 295 Mich App 684, 694 ; 818 NW2d 410 (2012), this Court delineated the following principles governing contract law: “The essential elements of a contract are parties competent to contract, a proper subject matter, legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.” Issues regarding the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal -4- effect of a contractual clause are reviewed de novo.

2020“The legal effect of a contractual clause is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.” Quality Prods & Concepts Co v Nagel Precision, Inc, 469 Mich 362, 369 ; 666 NW2d 251 (2003).

2020“The legal effect of a contractual clause is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.” Quality Prods & Concepts Co v Nagel Precision, Inc, 469 Mich 362, 369 ; 666 NW2d 251 (2003).

2017Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 162 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011). “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2017Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich 157, 162 ; 809 NW2d 553 (2011). “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2018“Questions involving the proper interpretation -3- of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.” McDonald v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 480 Mich 191, 197 ; 747 NW2d 811 (2008). “[C]ontracts are enforced according to their terms[,]” which “is a corollary of the parties’ liberty to contract.” Coates v Bastian Bros, Inc, 276 Mich App 498, 503 ; 741 NW2d 539 (2007).

2018“Questions involving the proper interpretation -3- of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.” McDonald v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 480 Mich 191, 197 ; 747 NW2d 811 (2008). “[C]ontracts are enforced according to their terms[,]” which “is a corollary of the parties’ liberty to contract.” Coates v Bastian Bros, Inc, 276 Mich App 498, 503 ; 741 NW2d 539 (2007).

2017We also review de novo “questions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause . . . .” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).2 “[C]ontracts must be read as a whole.” Kyocera Corp v Hemlock Semiconductor, LLC, 313 Mich App 437, 447 ; 886 NW2d 445 (2015). “[C]ourts must . . . give effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a contract and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the contract surplusage or nugatory.” Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459, 468 ; 663 NW2d 447 (2003) (quotation ma

2017We also review de novo “questions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause . . . .” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).2 “[C]ontracts must be read as a whole.” Kyocera Corp v Hemlock Semiconductor, LLC, 313 Mich App 437, 447 ; 886 NW2d 445 (2015). “[C]ourts must . . . give effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a contract and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the contract surplusage or nugatory.” Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459, 468 ; 663 NW2d 447 (2003) (quotation ma

2026In re Koch Estate, 322 Mich App 383, 398 ; 912 NW2d 205 (2017).

2026In re Koch Estate, 322 Mich App 383, 398 ; 912 NW2d 205 (2017).

2020“This case also presents questions regarding the interpretation of the court rules, which are also reviewed de novo.” AFP Specialties, Inc v Vereyken, 303 Mich App 497, 504 ; 844 NW2d 470 (2014).

2020“This case also presents questions regarding the interpretation of the court rules, which are also reviewed de novo.” AFP Specialties, Inc v Vereyken, 303 Mich App 497, 504 ; 844 NW2d 470 (2014).

2019Royal Prop Group, 267 Mich App at 713 .

2019Royal Prop Group, 267 Mich App at 713 .

2018“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Woodington v Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352, 355 ; 792 NW2d 63 (2010). “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a -3- contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are . . . reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2018“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Woodington v Shokoohi, 288 Mich App 352, 355 ; 792 NW2d 63 (2010). “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a -3- contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are . . . reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2017We also review de novo “questions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause . . . .” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).2 “[C]ontracts must be read as a whole.” Kyocera Corp v Hemlock Semiconductor, LLC, 313 Mich App 437, 447 ; 886 NW2d 445 (2015). “[C]ourts must . . . give effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a contract and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the contract surplusage or nugatory.” Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459, 468 ; 663 NW2d 447 (2003) (quotation ma

2017We also review de novo “questions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause . . . .” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).2 “[C]ontracts must be read as a whole.” Kyocera Corp v Hemlock Semiconductor, LLC, 313 Mich App 437, 447 ; 886 NW2d 445 (2015). “[C]ourts must . . . give effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a contract and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the contract surplusage or nugatory.” Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459, 468 ; 663 NW2d 447 (2003) (quotation ma

2017Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358 ; 547 NW2d 314 (1996). [Id. at 120.] -7- “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.

2017Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358 ; 547 NW2d 314 (1996). [Id. at 120.] -7- “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are also reviewed de novo.

2017“In general, consent judgments are final and binding upon the court and the parties, and cannot be modified absent fraud, mistake, or unconscionable advantage.” Id. “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are . . . reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2017“In general, consent judgments are final and binding upon the court and the parties, and cannot be modified absent fraud, mistake, or unconscionable advantage.” Id. “[Q]uestions involving the proper interpretation of a contract or the legal effect of a contractual clause are . . . reviewed de novo.” Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 464 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).

2017MCR 2.507(G) provides, “An agreement or consent between the parties or their attorneys respecting the proceedings in an action is not binding unless it was made in open court, or unless evidence of the agreement is in writing, subscribed by the party against whom the agreement is offered or by that party’s attorney.” “An attorney has the apparent authority to settle a lawsuit on behalf of his or her client.” Kloian v Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 273 Mich App 449, 453 ; 733 NW2d 766 (2006).

2017MCR 2.507(G) provides, “An agreement or consent between the parties or their attorneys respecting the proceedings in an action is not binding unless it was made in open court, or unless evidence of the agreement is in writing, subscribed by the party against whom the agreement is offered or by that party’s attorney.” “An attorney has the apparent authority to settle a lawsuit on behalf of his or her client.” Kloian v Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 273 Mich App 449, 453 ; 733 NW2d 766 (2006).

2017MCR 2.507(G) provides, “An agreement or consent between the parties or their attorneys respecting the proceedings in an action is not binding unless it was made in open court, or unless evidence of the agreement is in writing, subscribed by the party against whom the agreement is offered or by that party’s attorney.” “An attorney has the apparent authority to settle a lawsuit on behalf of his or her client.” Kloian v Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 273 Mich App 449, 453 ; 733 NW2d 766 (2006).

2017MCR 2.507(G) provides, “An agreement or consent between the parties or their attorneys respecting the proceedings in an action is not binding unless it was made in open court, or unless evidence of the agreement is in writing, subscribed by the party against whom the agreement is offered or by that party’s attorney.” “An attorney has the apparent authority to settle a lawsuit on behalf of his or her client.” Kloian v Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 273 Mich App 449, 453 ; 733 NW2d 766 (2006).

2003The Court of Appeals, relying on Silverman v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 445 Mich 209 ; 516 NW2d 54 (1994), determined that the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not request monetary damages.

2003The Court of Appeals, relying on Silverman v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 445 Mich 209 ; 516 NW2d 54 (1994), determined that the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not request monetary damages.