Moody v. Home Owners Insurance
304 Mich. App. 415
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Three Wayne County no-fault cases challenge district court jurisdiction under MCL 600.8301(1) where damages claimed exceed $25,000.
- Moody admitted damages beyond $25,000; Hodge and providers similarly presented evidence exceeding the limit.
- District court permitted proof and argument of excess damages and remitted verdicts to the $25,000 limit rather than dismissing or transferring.
- Circuit court vacated Moody/Hodge judgments as void for lack of jurisdiction and remanded for dismissal or transfer; voided providers’ judgment as intertwined with Moody.
- Circuit court also held Moody’s counsel misconduct deprived Home Owners of a fair trial, warranting a new trial; these rulings were affirmed on appeal.
- Opinion concludes that aggregate claims must be considered to determine the amount in controversy under MCL 600.8301(1), and remands for further proceedings consistent with the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had jurisdiction under MCL 600.8301(1) | Moody and Hodge asserted district court jurisdiction despite excess damages | District court could proceed and reduce judgment to $25,000 | No; jurisdiction lacked; cases void; dismiss or transfer required |
| Whether consolidation merged Moody and providers for jurisdiction | Providers argue separate claims; Moody’s excess damages drive jurisdiction | Consolidation merged claims for purpose of amount in controversy | Consolidation merged claims for jurisdictional purposes; entire judgment void |
| Whether district court could cure lack of jurisdiction by limiting verdict | Court could remand and cap damages at $25,000 | Court cannot confer jurisdiction or cure with post-trial reduction | No; jurisdiction cannot be cured by limiting judgment; necessary to dismiss or transfer |
| Whether preservation and appellate review of counsel misconduct were proper | Home Owners preserved issue; Moody’s counsel remarks prejudiced trial | Defense status; remarks were not fatal | Circuit court did not clearly err; misconduct warranted new trial; affirmed remand |
| Whether invited error/waiver affected jurisdiction rulings | Waiver applies to error, not jurisdiction; invited error not here | Error not waived; jurisdiction issue remains | Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; preserved and reviewed; rulings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v Univ. of Mich. Bd. of Regents, 375 Mich. 238 (1965) (court must dismiss or transfer when lack of jurisdiction is clear)
- Zimmerman v. Miller, 206 Mich. 599 (1919) (jurisdiction determined by pleadings, not later recovery)
- Strong v. Daniels, 3 Mich. 466 (1855) (test of jurisdiction based on amount claimed in declaration)
- Inkster v. Carver, 16 Mich. 484 (1868) (damages claimed in declaration test jurisdiction)
- Hatcher v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 269 Mich. App. 596 (2006) (no-fault claims; ownership of PIP rights; assignment issues)
- Reetz v. Kinsman Marine Transit Co., 416 Mich. 97 (1982) (misconduct by counsel may require new trial to ensure fair proceedings)
- Yee v. Shiawassee Co. Bd. of Comm’rs, 251 Mich. App. 379 (2002) (court may raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte; nonwaivable)