Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #311148; Unpublished
Judges Shapiro, Markey, and Stephens, 2-1 (Judge Markey concurring in part and dissenting in part); Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
Link to Conc./Dissent
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to No-Fault PIP Benefits: Bodily Injury Requirement [§3105(1)]
Aggravation of Preexisting Conditions [§3105(1)]
Reasonable Proof Requirement [§3142(2)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this non-unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion (with Judge Markey concurring and dissenting in part) involving a claim for PIP benefits, the Court of Appeals held the trial court: 1) erroneously vacated a no cause of action judgment that was issued after a jury found plaintiff did not suffer an accidental bodily injury or aggravate a pre-existing injury in an auto accident; 2) improperly entered a “new” judgment that was basically a judgment for plaintiff based on defendant’s alleged admissions; and 3) erroneously awarded plaintiff attorney fees under MCL 500.3148 because plaintiff was unsuccessful on her claim to recover benefits.
Plaintiff brought an action against defendant, her no-fault insurer, after she was injured in a car accident. The issue before the jury was whether plaintiff sustained a knee injury or knee aggravation in the accident, and the jury found that plaintiff did not. The trial court issued a no cause of action, but later vacated that judgment and entered a “new” judgment, which did not reference the jury verdict and limited the judgment in favor of defendant to specified surgical expenses, among other things.
On appeal, defendant claimed the trial court erroneously vacated the no cause judgment, inappropriately entered a “new” judgment, and improperly awarded plaintiff attorney fees. Plaintiff asserted, however, the “new” judgment was correctly issued because defense counsel had engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct in violation of the court rules. Plaintiff alternatively argued that relief from the no cause judgment was proper under the “catch-all” court rule that allows relief based on “any other reason justifying relief.”
In reversing the trial court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals said the evidence did not support a finding of fraud or misrepresentation to grant relief from the no cause judgment. The court stated:
“Plaintiff does not even come close to alleging fraud. … Nothing in the record supports that defendant or defense counsel made a material misrepresentation on which plaintiff, the court, or the jury relied resulting in the jury’s verdict and the judgment of no cause of action.”
As for plaintiff’s “catch-all” argument, the Court of Appeals said this basis for relief was unavailable because plaintiff did not show there were “extraordinary circumstances” and did not establish that setting aside the judgment would not “detrimentally affect” the “substantial rights” of defendant. The court said:
“The case was tried before a jury which did not believe plaintiff’s testimony and returned its verdict on a special verdict form that plaintiff’s counsel requested and drafted. … There is no injustice in allowing the judgment to stand.”
The Court of Appeals further concluded that attorney fees were improperly awarded to plaintiff under §3148(1). Although the trial court had awarded fees because it found that defendant had unreasonably denied benefits, the Court of Appeals said §3148(1) requires that benefits must be “recovered” to receive attorney fees and, in this case, benefits were not “recovered” because the jury found plaintiff did not suffer an accidental bodily injury or aggravate a pre-existing one.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the “new” judgment that was entered by the trial court, and reinstated the original no cause of action judgment.
In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, Judge Markey said she agreed with the majority, except its discussion regarding any preclusive effect of the original judgment in the case. She said the entire last paragraph of the majority’s analysis was “dicta” because it discussed an issue not before the court.
