Release of a claim; Effect of a prior assignment; Res judicata; Whether the claims arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claims released

Holding that the trial court did not err when it determined plaintiff-healthcare provider’s suit was barred by defendant’s insured’s (nonparty-K) release and by res judicata, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant. Plaintiff treated K after her auto accident. Defendant insured K at the time of the accident. Plaintiff argued K “could not have settled the claims related to its treatment because she had already assigned those claims to plaintiff.” However, the “Supreme Court has long held that when an assignment of claims occurs after a lawsuit is filed—the subject of which concerns those assigned claims—the assignor may settle or release those claims, precluding any further recovery by the assignee.” Plaintiff, aware of K’s “lawsuit, had the right to intervene in that litigation as a result of the assignment.” In choosing not to do so, plaintiff acquiesced for K, “the assignor, to proceed on its claims.” The record showed that “plaintiff’s decision not to intervene was a strategic decision.” Thus, it was bound under the terms of the settlement she “agreed to, which explicitly covered all other claims for PIP benefits.” Plaintiff also argued res judicata did not apply to its claims because they “were not ripe and did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as [K’s] claims.” The court noted that K filed suit “to adjudicate all of her existing rights under the” No-Fault Act. When “plaintiff decided to bring its own action against defendant, it was aware that [K] intended to adjudicate all no-fault claims arising out of the” accident, but it did not seek to intervene in K’s litigation. While plaintiff’s claims may not have been ripe when K “filed her complaint because plaintiff’s services had not yet been rendered, its claims were ripe at the time plaintiff filed its own” case. Nothing prevented “plaintiff from bringing its claims at the time [K’s] lawsuit was pending. Plaintiff’s argument that its claims arose out of a different transaction or occurrence than” K’s claims was also meritless. She sought payment of no-fault benefits from defendant as a result of her 2016 accident. “Plaintiff, through its lawsuit, also sought payment of no-fault benefits arising from the same accident. Plaintiff, as an assignee,” stood in the position of K, having “‘the same rights and being subject to the same defenses.’” Thus, for it, “as an assignee, to exercise any rights under the assignment, those rights must have arisen from the same transaction or occurrence under which the assignor obtained those rights.”