In Yaldo v. North Pointe Ins Co, 457 Mich 341; 578 NW2d 274 (1998), the Supreme Court of Michigan construed the term "written instrument" in subsection 5, explaining that it was "clear and unambiguous" and plainly encompassed a written insurance contract. Id. at 346. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that by using the word "instrument," the Legislature intended for subsection 5 to apply only to negotiable instruments or other written documents that include specified interest rates. Id While the Supreme Court bolstered its reasoning by citing a number of cases that used "written instrument," "written contract," and "insurance contract" interchangeably, the Court did not limit its holding to insurance contracts as Kroger contends. Id. at 346-347 The Court clearly applied the statute as written and, there being no dispute that the insurance contract was in writing, found that it fell within the statutory interest rate described in subsection 5. Id. at 346 In Yaldo v. North Pointe Ins Co, 457 Mich 341; 578 NW2d 274 (1998), the Supreme Court liberally construed MCL 600.6013(5); MSA 27A.6013(5) in the context of a suit by an insurer on his written insurance contract. The Yaldo Court, supra at 346, 350, explained: We note that the Legislature did not define the term "written instrument" when it enacted MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013. Nevertheless, we find the expression clear and unambiguous. An insurance policy is a written instrument. We refuse to rewrite the language of the statute effectively to limit "written instrument" to "negotiable instrument." The expression "negotiable instrument" is well known and is used throughout the Uniform Commercial Code. Had the Legislature intended to restrict the applicability of subsection 5 to negotiable instruments or instruments containing a rate of interest, it could easily have used such terminology. The purpose of MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013 is to compensate the claimant for delays in recovering money damages. . . . The Legislature's choice to impose a higher rate of interest on defendants who enter into written contracts is not arbitrary. First, there is a distinction between contract claims and tort claims. Tort claimants often do not have a preexisting relationship with their tortfeasors. On the other hand, there is a preexisting relationship between two parties who have signed a written contract. Greater expectations regarding performance and payments are likely to exist when the parties have established their rights and responsibilities before a controversy arises.