Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 106583; Published
Judges Sullivan, Gribbs, and Doctoroff; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 180 Mich App 704; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Replacement Service Expense Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(c)]
Replacement Service Expense Benefits: The Incurred Requirement [§3107(1)(c)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous, published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of summary disposition on plaintiffs claim for replacement service expenses, on the basis that the same claims had previously been litigated and were now barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Plaintiff was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1979. In his first lawsuit claiming replacement services, the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action and specifically found that plaintiffs had not provided reasonable proof that Mr. Richardson incurred and/or paid reimbursement expenses to his wife and children for household work. Mr. Richardson testified at the first trial that he had "promised to pay" his wife and children for this work.
Approximately one year following the first litigation, plaintiff Richardson filed another lawsuit, seeking recovery of expenses for replacement services. In the interim, he had tendered cashiers checks to his wife and children in the amount of $7,300 each, purportedly in payment for replacement services performed during the same period covered by the original lawsuit.
In finding that the second lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, the court held that the jury in the prior action expressly considered whether plaintiff incurred or paid any reimbursement expenses. Since the replacement services at issue in the second case were admittedly the same services at issue in the prior action, plaintiffs claim was barred.
The court also held that plaintiffs claim was barred by the statutory one-year limitations period. Since replacement service expenses are incurred when the obligation or agreement to pay arises, the court held that the 1986 lawsuit was barred by the statutory one-year limitation for expenses incurred from 1979 through 1982.
The Court of Appeals remanded the case for determination by the trial court of sanctions against the plaintiff for this frivolous lawsuit. Further, the court concluded that the appeal in this case was vexatious and, therefore, assessed punitive damages in an added amount equal to the actual expenses incurred by defendant in the appeal. The court ordered that actual and punitive damages should be awarded jointly against plaintiff and plaintiffs counsel.
