EDWARD ARTHUR FABIANO V JENNY CRAIG OPERATIONS INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
EDWARD ARTHUR FABIANO,
UNPUBLISHED
December 28, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
JENNY CRAIG OPERATIONS, INC., f/k/a
JENNY CRAIG WEIGHT LOSS CENTERS,
INC.,
No. 223632
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-900686-NO
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Neff and Hoekstra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by leave granted from a circuit court order denying its motion for
summary disposition on the ground that plaintiff’s claim was barred by a release. We reverse.
The trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Cole v
Ladbroke Racing Michigan, Inc, 241 Mich App 1, 6; 614 NW2d 169 (2000). In reviewing a
motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7), we review the affidavits, pleadings, and other
documentary evidence submitted by the parties and, where appropriate, construe the pleadings in
favor of the nonmoving party. The motion should be granted only if no factual development
could provide a basis for recovery. Id. at 6-7.
The interpretation of a release is a question of law for the court to decide. Id. at 13. It is
not contrary to public policy for a party to contract against liability for damages caused by its
own negligence. Skotak v Vic Tanny Int’l, Inc, 203 Mich App 616, 617-618; 513 NW2d 428
(1994). A release of liability is valid if it is fairly and knowingly made. It is void if the plaintiff
was unable to comprehend it, the defendant misrepresented the nature of the document, or the
defendant engaged in other fraudulent or overreaching conduct. Id. Its scope is governed by the
intent of the parties as it is expressed in the release. Adell v Sommers, Schwartz, Silver &
Schwartz, PC, 170 Mich App 196, 201; 428 NW2d 26 (1988). If the language of a release is
clear and unambiguous, the parties’ intent is to be ascertained from the plain and ordinary
meaning of the language used in the release. Batshon v Mar-Que Gen’l Contractors, Inc, 463
Mich 646, 649 n 4; 624 NW2d 903 (2001).
-1-
The release in question clearly and unambiguously released defendant from any and all
claims for injuries resulting directly or indirectly from participation in the diet program. This
language clearly encompasses plaintiff’s claim, which is that he indirectly suffered injury after
developing severe constipation from following the diet regimen defendant prescribed. There is
no evidence to suggest that defendant misled plaintiff with an intent to deceive regarding the
nature of the contract in general or the release in particular. We find no basis for concluding that
the release was void as against public policy under the test utilized in Cudnik v William
Beaumont Hosp, 207 Mich App 378; 525 NW2d 891 (1994). Accord BodySlimmer, Inc v
Sanford, 197 Ga App 565, 567; 398 SE2d 840 (1990). We therefore conclude that the trial court
erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition.
Reversed. We lift the stay of proceedings previously granted by this Court.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.