Debra Marbly v. Brandi Robertson, 348911

Rear-end collision: Marbly, working as a transport driver for G1, sought PIP benefits from the vehicle insurer, American Country Insurance (ACI), for attendant-care services her daughters provided.
ACI denied benefits and produced surveillance footage; the trial court granted ACI summary disposition under a fraud-exclusion clause, but this Court reversed, holding the fraud exclusion did not automatically bar Marbly’s claim because her entitlement could arise under MCL 500.3114(4).
On remand ACI moved for security for costs under MCR 2.109, requesting $25,000; Marbly opposed as untimely, argued inability to pay, and filed an affidavit showing about $700 monthly income and minimal assets.
The trial court ordered a reduced bond of $5,000 (citing prior fraud findings) to be posted within 30 days; Marbly did not post the bond, ACI moved to dismiss, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the bond without required findings on the legitimacy of the pleading and Marbly’s financial inability and by imposing an amount disproportionate to her income; the case was remanded for reinstatement and Marbly awarded costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly ordered security under MCR 2.109	Marbly argued her pleading stated a legitimate claim and she is financially unable to post bond (affidavit showing ~$700/month); bond should be waived under MCR 2.109(B)(1)	ACI argued security was reasonable given prior findings and risk of unrecoverable costs; trial court properly exercised discretion	Reversed — trial court abused discretion by failing to make findings on legitimacy and indigence and by imposing a bond far exceeding Marbly’s means
Whether dismissal with prejudice for failure to post bond was proper	Marbly argued bond order itself was improper and she should not be barred from proceeding given indigence and legitimate pleading	ACI argued dismissal is authorized if plaintiff fails to timely post ordered security	Because the bond order was an abuse of discretion, dismissal was improper; case must be reinstated

In re Surety Bond for Costs, 226 Mich. App. 321 (discusses standards and discretion for ordering security under MCR 2.109)
Farleigh v Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1251, 199 Mich. App. 631 (security should not be required unless there is a substantial reason)
Hall v Harmony Hills Recreation, Inc., 186 Mich. App. 265 (trial court must assess legitimacy of pleading and plaintiff’s financial ability before ordering bond)
Gaffier v St Johns Hosp, 68 Mich. App. 474 (strong preference to waive bond where indigent plaintiff’s pleadings show a meritorious claim)
Maldonado v Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review)