Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 344408; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Servitto, and Boonstra; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata
SUMMARY:
In this declaratory-judgment action for no-fault PIP benefits, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff, Georganna Rodgers, and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of the defendant, Auto-Owners Insurance Company. This action followed another lawsuit arising out of the same motor vehicle collision in which Rodgers listed both Auto-Owners and the negligent driver as defendants, and in which Rodgers prevailed after a jury trial. Rodgers thereafter moved for summary disposition in this action on the basis of res judicata, arguing that the question of whether she was entitled to future around-the-clock attendant care was definitively settled. The Court of Appeals noted, however, that the plaintiff’s claims for attendant care benefits in the previous action were limited to a specific time period, and that the plaintiff did not begin to request reimbursement for around-the-clock attendant care until after a verdict was rendered in the previous action. Thus, because Rodgers failed to present her claim seeking declaratory relief with respect to the need for around-the-clock attendant care in the previous action, res judicata actually barred her from doing so in this action.
Rodgers was struck by a vehicle while crossing a crosswalk and brought an action to recover unpaid no-fault PIP benefits for a period from 2015 to 2017 against her insurer, Auto-Owners. Rodgers ultimately prevailed after a jury trial, and then commenced the instant action against Auto-Owners seeking declaratory-relief on the issue of future around-the-clock attendant care. Rodgers moved for summary disposition under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, arguing that the key issues in dispute had already been litigated and decided in the prior action. The trial court agreed, and granted summary disposition in Rodgers’s favor.
The Court of Appeals reversed, however, noting that “the plaintiff’s claims for attendant care benefits in the prior action were limited to the time period between June 22, 2015, when defendant ceased reimbursing plaintiff for attendant care services, and August 2017.” The order of judgment in the previous action indicated that the plaintiff’s reimbursement award covered only the period from 2015 to 2017. Rodgers did not even seek reimbursement for around-the-clock attendant care until after the jury’s verdict in the first action, and thus the Court found there to be “no basis for concluding that her entitlement to reimbursement for around-the-clock attendant care was settled in the first action.” Moreover, res judicata would actually operate to bar the plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief regarding around-the-clock attendent care because it should have been raised in the previous action.
Exercising reasonable diligence, Adair, 470 Mich at 121, plaintiff could have presented her claim seeking declaratory relief with respect to the need for around-the-clock attendant care in the prior action. While plaintiff claimed in the trial court that, “[a]t the time of trial in the prior case, [p]laintiff’s family members were not able to provide [her] with the 24/7 care she required per Dr. Sewick[,]” the unavailability of plaintiff’s family members was not determinative of plaintiff’s need for around-the-clock care, and thus did not preclude plaintiff from raising her claim for declaratory relief with respect to her need for around-the-clock care.
For these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiff on the basis of res judicata, and we remand this case to the trial court for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant under MCR 2.116(I)(2). Given our disposition of this issue, we need not address defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal.
