Dismissal of a first-party action for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits based on the failure to respond to discovery; Former MCR 2.313(D); Principle that dismissal is a drastic & disfavored sanction; Vicencio v. Ramirez; Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. ACO, Inc.; Principle that the trial court must evaluate all available options on the record before imposing such a drastic remedy; Draggoo v. Draggoo; Thorne v. Bell; Dean v. Tucker; Duray Dev., LLC v. Perrin

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs’ PIP claim without evaluating other available sanctions on the record. Plaintiffs sued defendant-insurer claiming it failed to timely pay PIP benefits for injuries they sustained in a car accident. The trial court dismissed their claim with prejudice after they failed to respond to discovery and failed to appear at a hearing on defendant’s motion to compel discovery or in the alternative to dismiss. It also denied their motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiffs that the trial court erred by dismissing their claim. “The trial court had not previously entered any order regarding discovery, plaintiffs had not violated any other court order, and there is no indication that plaintiffs had a history of deliberate delay. While a court is not precluded from granting a dismissal for failure to respond to discovery, in the absence of a court order compelling discovery that is a particularly harsh result.” Although their “failure to respond to the motion or appear for the hearing contributed to” the trial court’s ruling, even under these “circumstances, a court may not ignore the well-established caselaw governing dismissals for discovery misconduct. Given that there had not been a court order compelling discovery and that this was the first time that [defendant] sought court intervention regarding discovery,” the trial court’s order dismissing their claim was an abuse of its discretion. Reversed and remanded.