Actions for breach of contract & third-party action alleging violation of the Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA) (MCL 15.361 et seq.); The “law of the case” doctrine; Grievance Adm’r v. Lopatin; Kasben v. Hoffman; Damages for breach of contract; New Freedom Mtg. Corp. v. Globe Mtg. Corp.; Farm Credit Servs. of MI’s Heartland, PCA v. Weldon; Mitigation of damages; Morris v. Clawson Tank Co.; Failure to develop an argument for appeal; Wilson v. Taylor; Indemnification; Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr., Inc.; Redfern v. RE Dailey & Co.; Attorney fees & costs; Schoensee v. Bennett; Sentry Ins. v. Lardner Elevator Co.; Zeeland Farm v. JBL Enters.; Hayes v. General Motors Corp.; Warren v. McLouth Steel Corp.; Reasonableness of attorney fees; MRPC 1.5(a); Speicher v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Election Comm’rs; Case evaluation sanctions; MCR 2.403(O); Filing of request for case evaluation sanctions; MCR 2.403(O)(8); Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights; Allard v. State Farm Ins. Co.; Enforcement of a judgment; MCL 600.6104; Contempt; In re Contempt of Dorsey; In re Contempt of Robertson; In re Contempt of United Stationers Supply Co.; In re Moroun

The court held that the defendants-eye doctor and practice (Sherrod) were entitled to a new trial as to damages, but that the trial court did not err by awarding attorney fees and expenses to the plaintiffs-eye doctor and practice (Sherman). It also held that the trial court erred by granting an additional $25,000 in case evaluation sanctions to third-party plaintiff-Garden City Hospital. Finally, it held that the trial court did not err in its order as to Sherrod’s Trust, or in holding Sherrod in contempt. Sherman sued Sherrod alleging a variety of claims including breach of contract. Sherrod counterclaimed alleging breach of contract and seeking an accounting, and filed a third-party complaint alleging that the hospital violated the WPA. The trial court granted summary disposition for both Sherman and the hospital, and granted them sanctions. In a prior appeal, the court found that the trial court properly granted summary disposition for the hospital, and for Sherman as to Sherrod’s counterclaims, but remanded as to Sherman’s breach of contract claim. On remand, a jury found for Sherman. The trial court later held Sherrod in contempt. On appeal, the court agreed that Sherrod was entitled to a new trial due to the trial court’s erroneous ruling that the court’s prior opinion limited the trial to the amount of damages only and precluded Sherrod from litigating the question of the causal relationship between the breach of contract and Sherman’s damages. “[T]he amount of damages attributable to the breach required testimony and evidence to establish that plaintiffs recovered only those damages as could be said to have directly, naturally, and proximately flowed from defendants’ breach.” The trial court “erred in ruling otherwise and in limiting the trial to a presentation of numbers only, without allowing testimony and evidence to support or discredit that the numbers were caused by defendants’ breach.” However, the court rejected Sherrod’s argument that the trial court erred by awarding attorney fees and expenses, noting that it “properly determined that the plain language of the indemnification clause applied,” and that Sherrod failed to identify anything that entitled her to an evidentiary hearing on the issue. The court also found that the trial court erred in granting additional case evaluation sanctions to the hospital, which “incurred no additional trial-related or trial oriented fees after its original award of case evaluation sanctions.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.