Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 351772; Unpublished
Judges Swartzle, Markey and Tukel; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation – tolling under 2019 amendments [§3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling dismissing plaintiff’s action based on the doctrine of res judicata. In doing so, the Court held that by granting summary disposition to defendant Esurance under MCR 2.116(C)(6), the Wayne Circuit Court did not address the merits of plaintiff’s claims, but rather the sole question of whether another action had been initiated between the same parties involving the same claim. The Court further affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the one-year-back rule applied to plaintiff’s actions, finding that the new amendments to MCL 500.3145 did not apply retroactively to plaintiff’s claims. Finally, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to transfer this case to Washtenaw Circuit Court, as the record reflected that venue was proper because Wayne County was the place in which Esurance conducted business.”
This case arose from an accident in which plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while in Shelbyville, Kentucky. In 2007, plaintiff sued Esurance in Shelby Circuit Court in Kentucky. While the Kentucky lawsuit remained pending, plaintiff filed a complaint in Michigan in Wayne Circuit Court seeking recovery for the same motor vehicle accident. The Wayne Circuit Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(6), which permits dismissal of a claim because “[a]nother action has been initiated between the same parties involving the same claim.” Plaintiff also filed a motion in the Kentucky court, requesting that the court transfer the litigation to Michigan. More than a year after the hearing on the motion, and after the Wayne Circuit Court dismissed the complaint filed there, the Kentucky Court entered an order applying Michigan law to plaintiff’s claims and purported to “transfer” the case to the Michigan Court. The transfer order included language that purported to toll the operation of the one-year-back rule in Michigan, ordering that “all claims in the action shall be governed by and related back to the filing date in the Kentucky action; specifically, July 25, 2007.” In 2015, the Wayne Circuit Court received the Kentucky Court’s transfer, and defendant filed a motion for summary disposition, contending that the Wayne Circuit Court’s earlier order granting summary disposition to defendant barred plaintiff’s claims in the subsequently transferred case under the doctrine of res judicata. The Wayne Circuit Court agreed, and plaintiff appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
In an unpublished decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to Esurance , finding that plaintiff had “failed to properly involve the trial court’s jurisdiction by filing a complaint.” Thus, the Court remanded the case the Wayne Circuit Court, instructing it to order plaintiff to file a complaint that comported with the Michigan Court Rules. In doing so, the Court stated that “[i]f plaintiff seeks to toll the date of the complaint’s filing, for instance by arguing that defendant agreed in Kentucky to consider the complaint as having been filed in Michigan at an earlier date, the trial court is directed to resolve those factual questions and make legal conclusions as necessary.” On remand from the Michigan Court of Appeals, plaintiff filed a new complaint in Wayne Circuit Court, which became the subject of the current appeal. Plaintiff also moved to transfer the case from Wayne Circuit Court to Washtenaw Circuit Court. The Wayne Circuit Court denied plaintiff’s motion to transfer. Thereafter, Esurance moved for summary disposition, contending that the Wayne Circuit Court’s grant of summary disposition required dismissal of the claims alleged in plaintiff’s most recent complaint under the doctrine of res judicata. Esurance further argued that the one-year-back rule applied to plaintiff’s action. The Wayne Circuit Court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the lawsuit, and plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals first considered the argument that plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the trial court had dismissed plaintiff’s 2013 complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(6). While the Wayne Circuit Court had agreed and dismissed plaintiff’s newest lawsuit on the same ground, the Court of Appeals disagreed. In doing so, the Court noted that “[t]he doctrine bars a second, subsequent action when (1) the first action was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.” In the present case, the Court concluded that Esurance had cited no authority for the argument that the Wayne Circuit Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(6) constituted a dismissal on the merits. Instead, the Court reasoned, the Wayne Circuit Court merely dismissed the claim because of the then-pending action in Kentucky. Accordingly, the Court noted that “there is no longer a separate lawsuit involving these parties and these claims in Kentucky, and it is uncontested that the merits of plaintiff;s claims have not been resolved by a court in a prior proceeding. [Thus], the doctrine of res judicata does not apply . . . . “
The Court next turned to plaintiff’s argument that that the parties agreed to toll the one-year-back rule when the case was “transferred” from Kentucky to Michigan, and that the Wayne Circuit Court erred by ruling otherwise. However, the Court was unconvinced by this argument, stating that the Court reviewed a trial court’s findings of fact for “clear error,” and noting that the trial court’s findings would only be clearly erroneous is “the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Here, the Court found that its review of the record left no such conviction.
The Court then turned to plaintiff’s challenge of the Wayne Circuit Court’s ruling that plaintiff’s newest lawsuit was subject to the one-year-back rule. In analyzing this claim, the Court clarified that, under MCL 500.3145 a claimant “may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced.” Plaintiff argued that the 2019 amendment to MCL 500.3145 (which added a statutory tolling provision to the one-year-back rule) prevented application of the rule in this case because the defendant had not issued denials for any of the benefits for the last decade. However, the Court noted that because plaintiff had not raised this argument in the Wayne Circuit Court, plaintiff had waived the issue on appeal. The Court further noted that even if it were to consider plaintiff’s claim, such claim would be without merit because the 2019 amendments to MCL 500.3145 apply prospectively, not retrospectively. Specifically, the Court noted that it was clear from the text of MCL 500.3145 that the Legislature did not intend the tolling provision of subsection (3) to have retroactive effect, as evidenced by the lack of any expression of intent. Thus, because Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Esurance before the amendment to MCL 500.3145 became effective, the tolling provision did not apply.
Finally, the Court addressed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to transfer the case to Washtenaw Circuit Court. In doing so, the Court noted that it was reviewing this decision for clear error. The Court examined plaintiff’s complaint, noting that plaintiff alleged that he was a resident of Wayne County, that defendant conducted a regular and systematic part of its business in Wayne County, and that plaintiff had medical providers in Wayne County. Thus, the Court found that, under MCL 600.1621(a), venue was proper in Wayne County because it was the county in which “defendant resides, has a place of business, or conducts business . . . .” Thus, the Court held that the Wayne Circuit Court did not clearly err when it denied plaintiff’s motion to transfer the case to Washtenaw Circuit Court.
Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s ruling dismissing plaintiff’s action based on the doctrine of res judicata, affirmed the trial court’s holding that the one-year-back rule applied to plaintiff’s action, and affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to transfer the case to Washtenaw Circuit Court.
