Michigan’s No-Fault Insurance Act (the Act) (MCL 300.3101 et seq.); Whether the future PIP benefits claim was or could have been resolved in a prior case; Res judicata; Washington v. Sinai Hosp. of Greater Detroit; Adair v. State; Sewell v. Clean Cut Mgmt., Inc.; Principle that a court may determine future liability under the Act & preclude payment until an expense is actually incurred; Rose v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.; Proudfoot v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.; Distinguishing Lewis v. Aetna Cas. Co.

The court held that because the Wayne Circuit Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s prior case operated as a decision on the merits, the trial court correctly determined that his claim for future PIP benefits was resolved in the first action. Thus, the trial court properly granted defendant-insurer summary disposition on the basis of res judicata, and did not err when it denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred when it held that the doctrine of res judicata applied to his claim for future PIP benefits. Citing the Act and two unpublished decisions, he disputed that the Wayne Circuit Court resolved his claim for PIP benefits accruing after 10/25/17. Plaintiff also argued “that a claimant may only waive unaccrued future PIP benefits through language in a court order specifically referencing a waiver or release.” As a result, plaintiff contended that the trial court erred when it granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition, and denied his motion for reconsideration. “However, the plain language of plaintiff’s complaint filed in Wayne Circuit Court sought ‘compensatory damages, including Plaintiff’s damages incurred after the filing of this Complaint.’ Such an explicit request” contradicted plaintiff’s contention “that the Wayne Circuit Court case did not include a claim for future damages.” Michigan law gave the Wayne Circuit Court “authority to address plaintiff’s claim for future PIP benefits, accrued before, during, or after” 10/25/17. He sought an award of future benefits in his complaint. His first complaint was dismissed with prejudice on the basis of discovery violations. While he relied on Lewis, that case did not extend to or support his “assertion that future PIP benefits in a no-fault personal injury benefits case can only be waived by a court order specifically referencing a waiver or release.” Further, it did not touch upon the res judicata doctrine.