Enhance Ctr for Interventional Spine & Sports v. Auto-Owners Ins, 354517

Kelly Johnson was injured in a 2018 auto accident and sued for first- and third-party no-fault benefits against the insurer (later substituted Home‑Owners) and a third-party driver.
Johnson failed to comply with discovery and admitted she was not claiming "allowable expense" benefits; Home‑Owners moved for partial summary disposition to dismiss her first‑party claim.
Before the court ruled, Johnson assigned her right to pursue payment for chiropractic services to Enhance Center for Interventional Spine & Sports (Enhance); Enhance did not intervene in Johnson’s suit.
The circuit court granted Home‑Owners’ motion and dismissed Johnson’s first‑party claims with prejudice; thereafter Enhance sued Home‑Owners directly seeking payment for services it provided.
Home‑Owners moved to dismiss Enhance’s suit under res judicata, relying primarily on Dawoud; the circuit court granted dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars an assignee’s suit when the assignment occurred before the assignor’s claim was dismissed	Assignment occurred before judgment; Enhance was not a party and had no opportunity to be heard, so judgment cannot bind it	Assignee stands in assignor’s shoes; judgment precludes later claims by successor-in-interest (relying on Dawoud)	Reversed: assignee not bound by judgment entered after assignment when assignee had no right to litigate in the first action
Whether Dawoud controls this case	Dawoud is distinguishable because the providers there were parties/intervenors in the first suit	Dawoud is precedential and dictates dismissal	Court: Dawoud inapposite—those providers were parties; here Enhance was not a party, so Dawoud does not control

Aultman, Miller & Co v Sloan, 115 Mich. 151 (1897) (assignee not bound by a judgment entered after assignment unless assignee had opportunity to litigate)
Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich. 37 (1971) (privity for preclusion limited to interests acquired under a party and temporal scope of assignment)
Taylor v Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (due process limits on nonparty preclusion)
Dawoud v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 317 Mich. App. 517 (2016) (service providers who were parties/intervenors in the first suit were precluded from relitigation)
Sewell v Clean Cut Mgt, Inc., 463 Mich. 569 (2001) (elements required for res judicata)
Adair v Michigan, 470 Mich. 105 (2004) (tests for privity and functional relationships for preclusion)
Postal Tel. & Cable Co., 247 U.S. 464 (1928) (federal due process concerns about binding assignees by judgments entered post‑assignment)