Just a few months back in February 2014, the Michigan Court of Appeals held in Graham v State Farm, Docket No. 313214 (Feb. 18, 2014), that an action for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits was barred by res judicata after a prior action for Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits was dismissed with prejudice per a settlement agreement.
The doctrine of res judicata bars a second subsequent action when (1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their privies, and (3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been resolved in the first. Washington v Sinai Hosp of Greater Detroit, 478 Mich 412, 417 (2000).
In Graham, the court examined the third element of res judicata and applied the same transaction test which stands for the proposition that different kinds of theories of relief can still constitute a single cause of action if a single group of operative facts gives rise to the assertion of relief. Applying this test, Graham held that PIP and UM claims arise from the same collision, involve the same parties and are related in time, space, origin and motivation and therefore, should be brought together at the outset, invoking res judicata for subsequent actions.
However, the Michigan Court of Appeals changed directions when it decided, Miles v State Farm, Docket No. 311699 (May 6, 2014), holding that a prior PIP action decided on the merits did not invoke res judicata for a subsequent UM action against the same party. Notably, the court made no reference to its decision in Graham though the “same transaction” test was still applied.
Unlike Graham, the court analyzed the difference in burdens of proof necessary to assert a claim for PIP benefits and a claim for UM benefits. The court reasoned that because the original suit only involved a dispute over whether the plaintiff’s claimed PIP benefits were causally related to the motor vehicle accident, it was not necessary to join plaintiff’s uninsured motorist claim which involved proving negligence and whether the plaintiff’s injuries satisfied the serious impairment threshold.
Expect Miles to complicate what was a seemingly clear holding in Graham where parties will look to align the facts of their case with the decision most beneficial to their position.
Mitchell McIntyre is a member of the firm's Transportation Law Practice Group. He focuses his practice on insurance-related work involving coverage disputes, entitlement issues and catastrophic injuries, as well as on ...
Add a comment
- No Fault Liability
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Auto Liability
- Fraud Activity
- Trucking Liability
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Premises Liability
- Cargo Liability
- Judicial Estoppel
- Retail Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- insurance policy
- Risk Management
- Public Policy
- Governmental Immunity
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Regulation
- Medicare Issues
- Michigan Steps up Efforts to Police Auto Liability Insurance Fraud
- Court Clarifies New Tolling Provision of Michigan No-Fault Act
- Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of MAIPF Claimant’s No-Fault Action Based on Fraudulent Attendant Care Forms
- Appellate Court Rules 2019 Michigan No-Fault Law Amendments Not Retroactive, Violate State’s Constitution
- Shop Talk – July Auto Liability Update
- Appellate Court Rules No-Fault Policy Can't be Coordinated With Health Care Ministry Program
- Michigan Court of Appeals Reaffirms Assignor’s Settlement of No-Fault Benefits is Binding on Assignees Unless Insurer Receives Notice of Assignment
- Shop Talk - June Auto Liability Update
- Michigan Court of Appeals to Hear Oral Argument on Constitutionality of No-Fault Reform
- Effective Framing of Medical Records can Disprove Threshold Injuries in Transportation Litigation