Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 323705; Published
Judges Riordan, Jansen, and Fort Hood; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
In an order dated March 14, 2016, the Court of Appeals decided not to convene a conflict resolution panel; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata
Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that, under the recently decided published opinion in Adam v Bell, the plaintiff’s settlement of a PIP claim did not bar his subsequent UM suit against the same no-fault insurer.
Plaintiff was in an auto accident with defendant Washington. State Farm, plaintiff’s no-fault insurer, denied coverage. Plaintiff filed an action (the “original action”) for PIP benefits, which ultimately settled. Plaintiff then brought this third-party suit against Washington and a UM claim against State Farm. State Farm asserted that res judicata barred the UM action because it should have been brought with the original action for PIP benefits. Plaintiff argued, however, that res judicata did not bar the UM suit because it differed from the original action for PIP benefits, and that the compulsory joinder rule did not require him to join the claim for UM benefits in the original action. The trial court held that res judicata barred plaintiff’s UM claim and granted summary disposition to State Farm. Plaintiff dismissed his claim against Washington with prejudice, and appealed the ruling as to State Farm.
While plaintiff’s appeal was pending, the Court of Appeals decided Adam, which presented facts identical to this case. The Adam panel, in a published opinion, held that res judicata did not bar that plaintiff’s subsequent UM claim, adopting the reasoning of the unpublished decision in Miles v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co. In Miles, the appeals court ruled that a PIP claim differs fundamentally from a UM claim “both in the nature of the proofs and the motivation for the claim.”
Applying the Adam precedent the present case, the Court of Appeals said it was “compelled” to reverse summary disposition for State Farm and remand the case for further proceedings. In this regard, the court said:
“[T]his Court’s holding in Adam that the doctrine of res judicata does not bar a claim for UM benefits that was filed after settlement of a claim for PIP benefits also applies in this case. … However, we disagree with the holding in Adam, and we would conclude that the claim for UM benefits in this case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata if we were we not bound to follow Adam. The two claims in this case arise from a single group of operative facts. … The PIP and UM claims stem from the same automobile accident and involve all of the same parties. Furthermore, the claim for PIP benefits and the claim for UM benefits are related in time, space, origin, and motivation, and the combination of the two claims form a convenient trial unit since they involve the same parties, the same automobile accident, and the same body of law. … Furthermore, application of the doctrine of res judicata in this case would relieve the parties of the costs and vexation of multiple lawsuits involving the same parties and the same automobile accident, would conserve judicial resources, and would encourage the finality of litigation. … Accordingly, we would conclude that the two claims constitute the same transaction if we were not bound to follow Adam.”
The Court of Appeals further rejected State Farm’s arguments that:
1) when plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Washington from the case, he was foreclosed from getting a judgment against Washington; and
2) under the compulsory joinder rule, MCR 2.203(A), plaintiff’s claim for UM benefits was barred because he failed to join that claim in the original action (the court noted it only rejected this argument because it was bound to follow Adam).
Because the Court of Appeals declared that it believed Adam was wrongly decided, the panel invoked the conflict resolution procedure set forth in MCR 7.215(J)(2). The Court of Appeals, on March 14, 2016, decided not to convene a conflict resolution panel.
