Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.307825; Unpublished
Judges Talbot, Donofrio, and Servitto; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff Guardian Angel Health Care, Inc. and the injured party, Larry Dodson, on the basis the action was barred, pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, because Mr. Dodson brought a prior action to recover no-fault benefits that included the expenses Guardian Angel Health Care, Inc. was pursuing in this action. In reaching its holding, the Court of Appeals determined that res judicata bars Guardian’s current action, because Guardian was in privity to Mr. Dodson’s 2007 action which was ultimately decided on the merits and resulted in a consent judgment between the parties.
The procedural history and underlying factual events of this case are complicated. The essential facts begin with Larry Dodson sustaining injuries in a motor vehicle collision that occurred on January 21, 2006. Mr. Dodson ultimately filed a lawsuit in March 2007 in the Wayne County Circuit Court to recover no-fault PIP benefits for the injuries he sustained in the subject collision. A priority dispute then ensued between two different insurance companies. The circuit court determined Progressive Insurance was ultimately responsible for Mr. Dodson’s claims. A consent judgment was entered on September 15, 2008, by Mr. Dodson’s attorney and Progressive that included payment for “accrued and unpaid medical expenses that were submitted to defendant Progressive . . . from the date of the accident through September 12, 2008, which total $301,572.07, exclusive of any claims by Henry Ford Health System and its related entities, including Bi-County Hospital and C.J. Mazure, D.O.” On August 8, 2008, before the circuit court entered the final judgment in Mr. Dodson’s PIP case pending in Wayne County, Guardian filed its own action against Progressive to recover payment of services Guardian provided to Mr. Dodson. Once the consent judgment was entered on September 15, 2008, Progressive then moved for summary disposition to dismiss Guardian’s action on the basis that the claims at issue were subject to the consent judgment and were, therefore, barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
In reversing the trial court’s denial of Progressive’s motion for summary disposition, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the doctrine of res judicata bars a second, subsequent action when (1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their privies, and (3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that under the Supreme Court’s holding in Adair v Michigan, 470 Mich 105 (2004), a party is said to be in privity when it “is to be so identified in interest with another party that the first litigant represents the same legal right that the later litigant is trying to assert.” The court also examined how the doctrine of res judicata was applied in its previous holding in TBCI, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 289 Mich App 39 (2010). The court ultimately applied these principles of res judicata and determined that, in this case, res judicata barred Guardian’s claim, because the 2007 case was a previous action to which Guardian was in privity and that during that previous case, Guardian’s claims were submitted to Progressive as part of the disputed claims for no-fault benefits. In this regard, the court specifically stated:
“In the instant case, as in TBCI, res judicata bars Guardian’s claim. The 2007 case was decided on the merits and resulted in a final judgment, both the 2007 case and the instant case involve the same parties or their privies, and the matter presented in this case was resolved in the first action or, at a minimum, could have been resolved in the first action. Similar to TBCI, Guardian is essentially standing in the shoes of Dodson by seeking benefits from Progressive, the insurer liable for such benefits. See id. at 44. Guardian’s claim is premised entirely on Dodson’s right to no-fault benefits from Progressive by virtue of Progressive’s commercial insurance policy issued to Contract Towing, Inc., which insured the tow-truck involved in the accident. It is undisputed that Romanzi submitted invoices from Guardian to Progressive before the circuit court entered the final judgment in the 2007 case. Guardian also had a lien against Dodson’s recovery in the 2007 case for payment of services that Guardian had rendered to Dodson. Thus, because both Guardian and Dodson represent the same legal right, they are privies of one another. See id.; Begin, 284 Mich App at 599.”
The Court of Appeals further explained that in addition to erroneously denying Progressive’s motion for summary disposition, the trial court erroneously determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine whether Guardian’s claims were part of Mr. Dodson’s 2008 consent judgment. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the consent judgment was clear and unambiguous and, therefore, the trial court was required to enforce it as written, and that an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Guardian’s claims were included in the consent judgment was unnecessary.
