Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 339145; published
Judges Meter, Gadola, and Tukel per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Case Evaluation - Accept/Reject in PIP Cases
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order that the case evaluation award only resolved the claims that were in Plaintiff’s case evaluation summary. The Court of Appeals reversed because it found the parties’ acceptance of case evaluation award resolved all of a plaintiff’s claims in the action.
Plaintiff sued Defendant for first-party PIP benefits including replacement services, work-loss, and medical benefits related to injuries Plaintiff sustained. The case was submitted to case evaluation. The case evaluation panel considered the case and awarded Plaintiff $45,000. Plaintiff accepted the award but typed into the form that he accepted the award “as to benefits referenced in Plaintiff’s Case Evaluation Summary only. Not including wage loss.” Defendant also accepted the award. After both parties were advised of mutual acceptance, Defendant moved for clarification from the court as to whom the proper payees of the award would be. Plaintiff responded that he had limited his case evaluation award to unpaid bills he had referred to in the case evaluation.
At the hearing Defendant argued that MCR 2.403 clearly provided that mutual acceptance of a case evaluation award resolves all claims in the action. Plaintiff countered that he had limited the scope of his acceptance. The trial court rejected Defendant’s argument and accepted Plaintiff’s limited acceptance argument. The trial court reasoned that “[n]o-fault cases are different because the claims continue to accrue the entire time that the case is pending in some—in some circumstances.” The trial court did not however address MCR 2.403. Thereafter the two parties could not agree on a proposed order to submit and both parties filed competing motions.
First, the Court found that case evaluation is designed to “expedite and simplify the final settlement of cases to avoid a trial.” Moreover, acceptance of case evaluation serves as a final adjudication and is therefore binding on the parties, similar to a consent judgment or settlement agreement. The Court then cited to CAM Constr. v Lake Edgewood Condo Ass’n, 465 Mich 549, (2002), where the Michigan Supreme Court considered the effects of the parties’ acceptance of a case evaluation award under MCR 2.403. There the Michigan Supreme Court held that, pursuant to MCR 2.403(M)(1), the parties’ acceptance of a case evaluation award resolved all Plaintiffs’ claims in the action—even those that had been summarily disposed. The Michigan Supreme Court explained that “allowing bifurcation of the claims within such actions, as plaintiff suggests, would be directly contrary to the language of the rule.” In this case, both parties submitted to case review without objection and so the entire case was before the review panel. Under CAM Constr, Plaintiff could not limit the scope of his acceptance and the case award amount was binding as to the entire action. Further, MCR 2.403 unambiguously describes the effect of acceptance of a case evaluation award. Upon acceptance by both parties, the trial court must dismiss the action with prejudice, and the judgment or dismissal “shall be deemed to dispose of all claims in the action.”
“Plaintiff’s contention that MCR 2.403 permitted him to limit his acceptance lacks merit. As the Supreme Court’s decision in CAM Constr makes clear, MCR 2.403 nowhere permits a party in an action involving one plaintiff against one defendant to (1) submit less than all of his claims to case evaluation and (2) limit any acceptance.”
Thus, the Court reversed the trial court and disallowed Plaintiff from limiting his acceptance or removing a claim that was before the case evaluation.
