Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 241043; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Gage, and Kelly; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff claiming PIP benefits was collaterally estopped and precluded from relitigating the issue of whether or not he was injured in the motor vehicle accident by reason of a jury verdict in his third-party action, concluding that he had not been injured in the accident.
Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by a vehicle giving rise to plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits for injuries sustained in the accident. Plaintiff reached a settlement agreement with Titan Insurance, by which Titan agreed to pay $22,500 of PIP benefits, and defendant agreed to continue paying benefits for such time as reasonable proof of plaintiff’s continuing disability was presented to defendant if defendant did not prevail on a motion for summary disposition concerning plaintiff’s further entitlement to such benefits. Defendant did not prevail on the motion.
Plaintiff filed a third-party negligence action against the other driver which was concluded by a jury verdict of no cause of action in which the jury concluded that the other driver was negligent but that the plaintiff was “not injured” as a result of the other driver’s negligence. Titan then stopped paying PIP benefits based upon the jury verdict.
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel payments and relied upon the Court of Appeals’ unpublished decision in Monat v State Farm Insurance Company (Docket No. 222690) which was issued on February 15, 2002. In Monat, the jury had determined in a third-party action that the plaintiff had not been injured in the collision. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision denying defendant’s argument that plaintiff was collaterally estopped, noting that the defendant cited no cases that extended the relaxation of the mutuality requirement to the realm of insurance cases.
In this case, Titan Insurance argued that plaintiff was collaterally estopped and precluded from relitigating the issue of his injury from the accident by reason of the jury determination in the third-party action. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court ruling in favor of Titan Insurance, holding that collateral estoppel does preclude the relitigation of an issue in a subsequent, different cause of action between the same parties or their privies when the prior action culminated in a valid final judgment and the issue was actually and necessarily litigated in that action. The Court of Appeals held that the finding by the jury in the third-party action that plaintiff was not injured in the accident constituted “reasonable proof that he was not disabled as a result of the accident.”
The court also pointed out that Monat has no precedential effect as an unpublished opinion and further, noted that the Supreme Court has granted leave in Monat.
