Vhs Huron Valley Sinai Hospital v. Sentinel Insurance Company, 328005

On June 25, 2013 Charles Hendon, Jr. was injured in a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident; VHS Huron Valley–Sinai Hospital (DMC) treated him and billed $68,569 for services provided Aug–Oct 2013.
Hendon sued his insurer, Sentinel, on Sept 9, 2013 for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits; he did not assert a no-fault PIP claim in that suit.
DMC later sued Sentinel (July 15, 2014) directly for no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for the medical services it rendered to Hendon.
Hendon settled his UM suit with Sentinel for $1,500 and the UM suit was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation on Oct 29, 2014.
Sentinel moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing res judicata barred DMC’s PIP suit; the trial court denied the motion, and the parties entered a stipulated dismissal allowing Sentinel to appeal that denial.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding res judicata did not bar DMC’s PIP claim because DMC and Hendon were not in privity regarding the UM litigation and PIP entitlement differed materially from the UM claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars DMC’s direct PIP claim against Sentinel	DMC argued its PIP claim is independent and was not litigated in Hendon’s UM suit	Sentinel argued the prior dismissal of Hendon’s UM suit (with prejudice) bars DMC’s later PIP claim under res judicata/privity	Court held res judicata does not bar DMC’s PIP claim because DMC and Hendon were not in privity and the earlier suit did not involve PIP entitlement

Adam v. Bell, 311 Mich. App. 528 (discusses de novo review and res judicata standard)
Mich. Head & Spine Inst., P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 299 Mich. App. 442 (procedural standards for MCR 2.116(C)(7) review)
Adair v. Michigan, 470 Mich. 105 (res judicata bars claims arising from same transaction that could have been raised)
Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Keeler Brass Co., 460 Mich. 372 (res judicata promotes fairness; limits on preclusion)
TBCI, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 289 Mich. App. 39 (medical provider in privity with insured where both suits involved PIP entitlement)
Washington v. Sinai Hosp. of Greater Detroit, 478 Mich. 412 (definition of privity: identification of interest)
Phinisee v. Rogers, 229 Mich. App. 547 (privity requires substantial identity of interests and a functional relationship)
Sloan v. Madison Heights, 425 Mich. 288 (broad definition of privity: mutual or successive relationship to same right)
Nickola v. MIC Gen. Ins. Co., 312 Mich. App. 374 (explains scope of uninsured motorist coverage)
Rory v. Continental Ins. Co., 473 Mich. 457 (UM coverage principles)