Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #313214; Unpublished
Judges Gleicher, Saad, and Fort Hood; 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 Coverage In General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of State Farm dismissing Graham’s uninsured motorist claims on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata, where Graham had previously filed and dismissed a lawsuit seeking personal injury protection (PIP) benefits arising out of the same accident.
Graham was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle collision in 2009. An action was filed in 2010, seeking first-party PIP benefits from Graham’s own insurer, State Farm. That same lawsuit also alleged negligence claims against the driver who caused the accident. During the course of that action, it was learned that the other driver was uninsured at the time of the accident. The PIP claim was then later settled and dismissed “with prejudice.” The action against the other driver was also dismissed, but “without prejudice.”
In 2011, Graham brought a second action against State Farm, asserting a claim for uninsured motorist benefits in connection with the same automobile accident. The trial court dismissed that action based upon the doctrine of res judicata and the compulsory joinder rule under MCR 2.203(A).
In affirming the trial court determination, the Court of Appeals, citing established case law setting forth the elements of the doctrine of res judicata, stated that the doctrine bars a second action when “(1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involved 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 pointed out that the dismissal of the prior action against State Farm “with prejudice” is deemed to be an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Further, it was not disputed that the 2011 action involved the same parties. The essential dispute was whether the third element of the doctrine of res judicata was satisfied.
The issue regarding whether the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first, is referred to as the “transactional test.” Citing Begin v Michigan Bell Tel Co, 284 Mich 581 (2009), the court noted that in that case, the Court of Appeals concluded that a tort claim involving claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress was “related in time, space, origin, and motivation, and would form a convenient trial unit with plaintiff’s claims for no-fault benefits arising from his injuries in the motor vehicle accident.” In Begin, supra, it was determined that had the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence, the subsequently filed tort claim could have been raised in the first lawsuit for PIP benefits and, therefore, the subsequent case was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals held that:
“A PIP claim and a UM claim arising from the same collision and involving the same insurer and insured are more related in time, space, origin, and motivation than the claims in Begin for payment of no-fault benefits and a tort claim arising from the insurer’s handling of the claims. The PIP and UM claims involved here likewise meet the same transaction test.”
Accordingly, the trial court’s dismissal of the claim as to State Farm in the second action was affirmed.
