Garrett v. Washington
314 Mich. App. 436
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Garrett had a no-fault policy with State Farm following a January 4, 2013 accident.
- Garrett filed a PIP claim against State Farm on June 3, 2013, which was settled by case evaluation settlement notice on February 20, 2014.
- The original action was dismissed with prejudice at a settlement conference on April 22, 2014.
- Garrett then filed a third-party claim against Washington for negligence and against State Farm for UM benefits in the instant case.
- The trial court granted State Farm summary disposition, dismissed its claim with prejudice, and later Washington was dismissed without prejudice.
- Garrett appeals, contending res judicata does not bar his UM claim; the panel reverses and remands per Adam’s framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata applicability to UM claim | Garrett - UM claim could follow a different action; not barred. | State Farm - UM claim barred by res judicata as part of same transaction. | Res judicata does not bar UM claim per Adam (bound). |
| Whether two claims arise from same transaction | Garrett - PIP and UM claims are distinct; may not form same transaction. | State Farm - same accident; same parties; should be same transaction. | Under Adam framework, they may constitute same transaction; remand required. |
| Premature/compulsory joinder under MCR 2.203(A) | Garrett - compulsory joinder not required; UM claim could be separate. | State Farm - joinder required if same transaction. | Adam binding; compulsory joinder not viable ground to affirm; remand required. |
| Mootness of appeal regarding Washington dismissal | Garrett - dismissal without prejudice preserves right to sue Washington later. | State Farm - mootness bar because no live controversy. | Not moot; Washington dismissal without prejudice preserves potential claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adair v. Michigan, 470 Mich 105 (2004) (broad, transactional approach to res judicata; same transaction test)
- Ditmore v. Michalik, 244 Mich App 569 (2001) (consent judgments and res judicata applicability)
- CAM Constr v Lake Edgewood Condo Ass'n, 465 Mich 549 (2002) (res judicata principles in Michigan civil actions)
- Shavers v. Attorney General, 402 Mich 554 (1978) (PIP benefits framework and immediate entitlement)
- Auto Club Ins Ass'n v. Hill, 431 Mich 449 (1988) (threshold injury and distinctions between PIP vs UM claims)
- McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010) (injuries and proof requirements for threshold determinations)
- Dawe v. Bar-Levav & Assoc (On Remand), 289 Mich App 380 (2010) (damages considerations in no-fault UM contexts)