A man claimed that a number of police officers assaulted him in his home, and that a second group of officers, also present, failed to intervene to stop the unjustified use of force, which he contended constituted gross negligence. Claims against the second group of officers were settled for a total of $25,000, and a signed release agreement was entered into which stated that it covered the discharge of "all other persons" from the plaintiff's claims. The first group of officers, who were alleged to have assaulted the plaintiff, argued that the release covered claims against them as well as against the second group of officers, despite the fact that they had not signed it, paid nothing under it, and were represented by separate counsel and insurance companies. An intermediate Michigan appeals court upheld these officers' interpretation. The Michigan Supreme Court has now reversed, and in so doing overturned a prior state court decision barring the use of testimony and other extrinsic evidence outside of the language of a release when an unnamed party asserts third-party beneficiary rights based on broad language in a liability release, and when there is an ambiguity as to the intended scope of the coverage of the release. The plaintiff's intent, it was argued, had been to only settle with the second group of officers. Further proceedings were ordered on this issue. Shay v. Aldrich, #138908, 2010 Mich. Lexis 1700.
     Civil rights plaintiff could not recover against defendants for breach of settlement agreement once verdict was returned in favor or defendants after they announced their refusal to abide by agreement Smith v. Brink, 561 A.2d 1253 (Pa Super 1989).