Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 213521; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Collins, and Owens; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff s lawsuit against Secura Insurance Company for no-fault first-party benefits on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff had earlier litigated and lost a claim for uninsured motorist benefits against Secura Insurance Company, because plaintiff failed, in that lawsuit, to convince a jury that she was injured as a result of physical contact between her vehicle and another vehicle. After losing that uninsured motorist claim, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Secura seeking recovery of no-fault PIP benefits and alleging that her injuries were the result of a rear-end collision caused by another vehicle. The trial court granted defendant's motion for dismissal on the basis of res judicata and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the jury verdict in the first case, which specifically found that there was no accident with another vehicle, bars a second lawsuit seeking to litigate the same question. In so holding, the Court of Appeals stated:
"Res judicata bars a subsequent action between the same parties when the fads or evidence essential to the action are identical to those essential to a prior action.... Plaintiff sued for first-party PIP benefits from an alleged accident she was involved in on February 1,1995.... In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that her injuries were the result of an accident when her vehicle was rear-ended by another vehicle. Likewise, in the previous action tried before the jury, plaintiff sued for permanent personal injuries that allegedly resulted from the same accident when her vehicle was allegedly struck from behind as she waited at a traffic signal... Although plaintiff’s cause of action in this case is different from her claim in the previous case, the proofs necessary for her to prevail in this case are identical to those in the previous case.... "Here, plaintiff alleged in her complaint that her injuries were caused by a collision with another vehicle. In plaintiff's prior action against Secura, plaintiff made this same claim. Since the jury determined that plaintiff was not struck... plaintiff cannot base her claim on events that have already been litigated. Therefore, the trial court correctly determined that plaintiff's first-party claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata."
