Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 347431; Unpublished
Judges Gleicher, Gadola, and Letica; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing the plaintiff’s first-party action to recover no-fault PIP benefits on the basis of res judicata. This complaint was nearly identical to one that had already been dismissed, on October 25, 2017, because the plaintiff, Moustafa Nasser, failed to appear for a deposition after being ordered to by the trial court. In this complaint, Nasser sought reimbursement for expenses he incurred after October 25, 2017, but the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court’s dismissal of his previous action, on the merits, resolved any claims he might have for future PIP benefits related to the underlying motor vehicle collision as well.
Nasser was injured in a motor vehicle collision and filed a first-party lawsuit against his automobile insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. During discovery, State Farm sought unsuccessfully to schedule Nasser’s deposition, prompting it to file a motion to compel. The trial court granted State Farm’s motion, and after Nasser failed to appear for his deposition on the date scheduled by the court, the court dismissed his claim with prejudice. Some time afterward, having incurred new expenses related to treatments he had received for his injuries from the underlying collision, Nasser filed a nearly identical complaint to the one that had already been dismissed. State Farm moved for summary disposition, arguing that Nasser’s claim was barred by res judicata, but Nasser argued that his new complaint related only to expenses he had incurred after the previous case was dismissed. The trial court rejected Nasser’s argument, and granted State Farm’s motion for summary disposition.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that “Michigan law afforded the [trial court] the authority to address plaintiff’s claim for future PIP benefits, accrued before, during, or after October 25, 2017.” Moreover:
Plaintiff’s first complaint was dismissed with prejudice on the basis of discovery violations. Because the Wayne Circuit Court dismissal operated as one on the merits, the trial court in this action correctly concluded that plaintiff’s claim for future PIP benefits was resolved in the first action.
