Hare v. Starr Commonwealth Corp.
813 N.W.2d 752
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hare, as personal representative of Marcel Hare, sues Melvin and Starr Commonwealth for neglect-based claims arising from Marcel’s drowning while in foster care; Frontier Insurance provided defense under policies covering Melvin and Starr Commonwealth.
- Frontier sought to dismiss garnishment after New York ordered Frontier rehabilitated, claiming antisuit provisions barred suits in Michigan.
- Michigan circuit court granted Frontier summary disposition, concluding the New York order entitles full faith and credit for antisuit provisions and dismissing the action.
- Hare argued the New York order’s antisuit provisions are unenforceable in Michigan under FF&C and the UEFJA, and that Michigan public policy and personal-jurisdiction concerns defeat recognition.
- The opinion ultimately concludes the antisuit provisions are not entitled to FF&C/UEFJA recognition and that abstention to New York is appropriate, but the result would have been the same even if those provisions were not recognized, i.e., the remedy lies in New York.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY antisuit provisions are entitled to FF&C/UEFJA recognition | Hare argues antisuit provisions are enforceable in Michigan | Frontier argues FF&C/UEFJA requires recognition | No; antisuit provisions not required to be enforced under FF&C/UEFJA |
| Whether Michigan should abstain to NY forum (forum non conveniens/comity) | Hare argues should not abstain; Michigan decides merits | Frontier argues abstention to NY appropriate | Yes; abstain/deferral to NY forum appropriate |
| Whether NY order of rehabilitation as a whole bars Hare’s claim in Michigan | Isolate antisuit portion to bar action | Order intended to rehabilitate Frontier, not bar this claim | Antisuit portion not required to be enforced; NY remedy available but abstention governs |
Key Cases Cited
- Keehn v Charles J Rogers, Inc., 311 Mich 416 (1945) (recognition of foreign orders; forum policy considerations)
- Dart v Dart, 460 Mich 573 (1999) (comity and forum considerations; dismissal under forum non conveniens concepts)
- Poindexter v Poindexter, 234 Mich App 316 (1999) (full faith and credit for foreign judgments; finality on merits needed)
- Blackburne & Brown Mtg Co v Ziomek, 264 Mich App 615 (2004) (limits of FF&C; antisuit issues not always enforceable)
- Baker v Gen Motors Corp, 522 US 222 (1998) (FF&C scope to equitable decrees; antisuit injunctions treated cautiously)
- Abney v Abney, 176 Ind App 22 (1978) (antisuit injunctions; comity considerations)