Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 301783, 301784, and 308723; Published
Judges Markey, Fitzgerald, and Owens; Unanimous; Per Curiam; Opinion by Judge Markey
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 304 Mich App 415; Link to Opinion 
On September 26, 2014, the Supreme Court Granted Leave to Appeal this decision; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Jurisdiction in PIP Cases
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion authored by Judge Markey, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling that the district court erred by allowing the injured person’s case to go to trial, because there was no question he was pursuing damages far in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictional limit of the district court in violation of MCL 600.8301(1). With regard to the medical providers claims that were consolidated with the injured person’s claims, the Court of Appeals held that because the cases were consolidated and there was a common issue in the injured person’s case and the medical providers’ case over whether the injured person was entitled to receive no-fault benefits, the district court’s judgment in favor of the medical providers must be vacated and remanded to the district court for either dismissal or transfer to the circuit court, even though those medical expense claims did not separately exceed $25,000. Lastly, the Court of Appeals further affirmed the circuit court’s Order reversing the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial on the basis that defendant was denied a fair trial because the plaintiff’s attorney was able to incorrectly argue to the jury that if it awarded benefits, defendant would ultimately be reimbursed by the Assigned Claims Facility.
In this first-party no-fault case, the injured person filed suit against Home Owners Insurance Company in district court to recover various claims for no-fault benefits which included payment for attendant care, wage loss and replacement services. The plaintiff’s complaint specifically stated that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $25,000 jurisdictional limit of the district court under MCL 600.8301(1). After the injured person filed his complaint, his medical providers filed their own complaint in the district court. Notably, the combined amount of the medical providers’ claims totaled $21,982.14. Ultimately, the claims of the injured person and the medical providers were consolidated by the district court. When it became apparent, prior to trial, that the injured person intended to present damages far in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictional limit of the district court under MCL 600.8301(1), the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the injured person’s case or transfer the case to the circuit court. The district court denied the defendant’s motion on the basis that if the jury returned a verdict in favor of the injured person in excess of $25,000, the court would cure the jurisdictional problem by limiting the judgment to $25,000, exclusive of attorney fees, interest, and costs. The jury’s verdict ultimately awarded damages in excess of $25,000 for plaintiff’s personal claims for no-fault benefits. Moreover, the jury also awarded damages in favor of the medical providers for the complete amount of their bills, i.e., $21,982.14. The district court ultimately reduced the plaintiff personal no-fault claims to $25,000, per the jurisdictional limit of the district court. The district court further entered judgment in favor of the medical providers in the amount of $21,982.14, per the jury’s verdict on those claims.
In deciding the case on appeal from the district court, the circuit court determined that the district court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer the case because the amount in controversy clearly exceeded the $25,000 jurisdictional threshold of the district court. The circuit court further ruled that the judgment for the medical providers must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial, because the providers’ claim was so intertwined with the injured person’s case, with regard to which the district court lacked jurisdiction. Additionally, the circuit court ruled that the district court also erred in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial in which the defendant argued that it was denied a fair trial because the plaintiff’s attorney was allowed to incorrectly argue that the defendant would be reimbursed by the Assigned Claims Facility.
In affirming the circuit court’s reversal of the district court’s ruling on jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals explained that under MCL 600.8301(1), a district court can never have subject matter jurisdiction over any civil action in which the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000. The Court of Appeals further explained that the district court is obligated to either dismiss a case or transfer it to the circuit court if the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000. The court further noted that a challenge to a court's subject matter jurisdiction can be made at any time during the litigation of a case. Moreover, the court reasoned that nothing in MCL 600.8301(1), MCR 2.227(A) (1), or MCR 2.116(C)(4) limits the district court’s obligatory jurisdictional query to the plaintiff’s complaint. Rather, in this case, it was clear that by the time of trial, the injured person was pursuing damages far in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictional limit of the district court. Therefore, the court reasoned there was no question that the district court should have either dismissed or transferred the injured person’s case to the circuit court.
With regard to the medical providers’ claims that were consolidated with the injured person’s case, the Court of Appeals held that the district court’s judgment in favor of the medical providers must be vacated and remanded to the district court for either dismissal or transfer to the circuit court, even though those medical expense claims did not exceed $25,000. In reaching this holding, the Court of Appeals rejected the medical providers’ argument that their claims may be saved by severing them after the fact of trial and judgment from the extra jurisdictional claims of the injured person. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument on the basis that the medical providers’ claims were dependent upon the same issue as the injured person’s claims, i.e., whether the injured person was entitled to benefits under MCL 500.3105. In this regard, the court found that there was “identity” between the injured person’s claims and those of the medical providers. Because there was an identity between the claims, the court considered the claims merged for purposes of determining the amount in controversy under MCL 600.8301(1). Notably, the court further explained that its reason was based on the fact that the cases were consolidated under MCR 2.505(A) because of “a substantial and controlling common question of law or fact.”
The Court of Appeals further rejected the medical providers’ argument that due to the fact the providers’ claim did not exceed the court’s $25,000 jurisdictional limit of the district court, pursuant to the “invited error” doctrine, the defendant could not complain of any taint from consolidation of the providers’ case with the injured person’s case as the circuit court found. In rejecting the medical providers’ “invited error” argument, the Court of Appeals explained that the “invited error” doctrine is typically said to occur when a party’s own affirmative conduct directly causes the error. In this case, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant did not cause the error. Rather, the district court caused the error by rejecting the defendant’s argument that the court should dismiss or transfer the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The court went on to explain that in addition to the claims of the medical providers and the injured person involving a substantial and controlling common question of law or fact, the providers’ claims actually belonged to the injured person because, as stated by the Court of Appeals in Hatcher v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 269 Mich App 596 (2006), “the right to bring an action for personal protection insurance benefits, including claims for attendant care services, belongs to the injured party.” Based on this principle, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the providers’ claims are derivative of the injured person’s claims and that the consolidation of claims at the district court was equivalent to a single plaintiff asserting multiple claims against a single defendant. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held that “all no-fault claims for benefits due a single injured party based on the same accidental injuries must be aggregated for the purposes of determining compliance with the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction under MCL 600.8301(1).”
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the circuit court’s ruling that the district court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial on the basis that defendant was not able to receive a fair trial because of the injured person’s attorney’s argument to the jury that defendant would be reimbursed by the Assigned Claims Facility for any amounts it paid for the injured person’s no-fault benefits. The court reasoned that the argument was legally incorrect and, moreover, irrelevant to the case. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit court that the defendant was entitled to a new trial on this issue, because the injured person’s counsel purposefully interjected an irrelevant issue to the prejudice of the defendant and to erroneously suggest to the jury that the defendant may not be liable for any of the claims and can recover from a third-party source.
