Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #227093, 227531 and 227532; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Zahra and Meter; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s lawsuit for no-fault first-party benefits was properly dismissed on the basis of collateral estoppel because, in an earlier lawsuit for uninsured motorist benefits, a jury had determined that the alleged injuries to plaintiff and her son were not proximately caused by the subject accident. In affirming the dismissal of the PIP claim, the court stated:
“Plaintiff’s argument focuses solely on the fact that different damages were sought.... However, in order to recover in either of the cases, plaintiff was required to prove that she and her son were injured as a result of a motor vehicle collision. In the uninsured motorist case, the jury determined that the alleged injuries to plaintiff and her son were not proximately caused by the 1997 accident. Accordingly, under collateral estoppel, the jury’s verdict in that case foreclosed plaintiff from establishing a necessary issue in the first-party cases. Although the trial court relied on res judicata as the basis for its decision, we affirm the decision because the court reached the correct result.”
