Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 346911; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Meter, and Kelly; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order in favor of the plaintiff, Geico Indemnity. Geico filed this subrogation action to recoup $80,160.73 it paid on behalf of its insured after a vehicle owned by its insured was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Hasan Dabaja and owned by Aya Dabaja, both of whom were uninsured. Prior to this subrogation action, the occupants of the vehicle struck by the Dabajas filed a lawsuit against Geico and the Dabajas, in which all parties eventually stipulated to dismissal of the action. The Court of Appeals held (1) that Geico did not violate the compulsory joinder provisions of MCR 2.203(A) by not asserting its subrogation claim in the prior lawsuit, and (2) that Geico’s subrogation claim was not barred by collateral estoppel.
Lamine Thiam and Awa Thiam were occupants of a vehicle insured by Geico when the Dabajas crashed into them. The Thiams filed an action against both Geico and the Dabajas, and all parties eventually stipulated to dismissal. After that lawsuit was dismissed, Geico filed this subrogation action against the Dabajas, seeking to recoup the $80,160.73 it paid on behalf of its insured. Ultimately the trial court granted summary disposition in Geico’s favor.
On appeal, the Dabajas argued first that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in Geico’s favor because Geico failed to assert its subrogation claim in the Thiams’s prior action, thereby violating the compulsory joinder provisions of MCR 2.203(A). The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that, since Geico and Dabajas were not opposing parties, MCR 2.203(A) did not require Geico to bring its subrogation claim as a counter- or cross-claim.
In other words, MCR 2.203(A) does not require that a counterclaim or a cross-claim be raised, but rather provides that if a counterclaim is raised, the counterclaimant must raise all other counterclaims arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the action. Thus, MCR 2.203(A) provides that a party must join every claim it has against an opposing party compulsory claims if the party files a pleading stating a claim against that opposing party, but does not require a defendant to initiate his or her own claims arising from that same transaction or occurrence by filing a counter claim or cross-claim; rather, a defendant may bring his or her claim in a separate action. Salem Indus, Inc v Mooney Process Equip Co, 175 Mich App 213, 215-216; 437 NW2d 641 (1988).
Here, in the 2016 action, Geico and the Dabajas were not opposing parties, but were instead co-defendants sued by the Thiams, and Geico brought no claims against the Dabajas in the 2016 action. Geico therefore was not required by MCR 2.203(A) to raise its subrogation claim against the Dabajas in the 2016 action.
The Court of Appeals similarly rejected the Dabajas’s argument that Geico’s action was barred by collateral estoppel, because the Thiams’s action against Geico and Geico’s action against Dabajas were not actions “between the same parties.”
In this case, the Dabajas have not established the elements of collateral estoppel. The 2016 action brought by the Thiams against Geico and the Dabajas was not a “an action between the same parties” as in the current action brought by Geico against the Dabajas. Nor does the current action involve relitigation of an issue that was actually and necessarily determined in the first proceeding. In the 2016 action, no claim was asserted by Geico against the Dabajas and no issue between them was resolved. Rather, the Thiams sued Geico and the Dabajas, Geico paid the Thiams approximately $80,000, and the parties agreed to the dismissal with prejudice of the Thiams’ claims against all defendants. Then Geico, as the subrogee of its insured, Jagon Jom, brought this action against the Dabajas to recoup the money it paid on behalf of Jom. The Dabajas thus have not demonstrated that this action brought by Geico is a relitigation of an issue in a subsequent, different cause of action between the same parties to the first litigation. Moreover, the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply where, as here, a consent judgment was entered with the issues being neither adjudicated nor conceded. In re Bibi Guardianship, 315 Mich App at 332.
