Dismissal for failure to post a security bond as ordered by the trial court under MCR 2.109(A); Wells v Fruehauf Corp; In re Surety Bond; First-party claim for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the No-Fault Act (NFA); Third-party claim under the NFA for noneconomic damages

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering plaintiff to post a $25,000 security bond under MCR 2.109(A), and properly dismissed the case when he failed to do so. In light of “the evidence submitted by the parties, there was good reason to believe that plaintiff would be unable to establish entitlement to recovery of either first-party PIP benefits or noneconomic damages on his third-party claim because his purported injuries and credibility were seriously questionable and causation was doubtful.” While he asserted “claims under recognizable legal theories of liability, i.e., no-fault claims arising from the accident,” the trial court did not clearly err in finding them “tenuous , , , ,” The record evidence showed that he “was involved in a low-impact incident with a fire truck that resulted merely in scuff marks and paint transfers which does not tend to give rise to any bodily injuries, let alone bodily injuries of a serious nature as required to assert first- and third-party no-fault claims.” The court noted that a “no-fault insurer is only liable to pay PIP benefits to the extent that the claimed benefits are causally connected to an accidental bodily injury arising out of an automobile accident. And noneconomic damages are only permitted if that bodily injury is serious in nature.” Plaintiff did not offer “evidence tending to establish his right to recovery under either theory of liability. As the trial court noted, plaintiff’s vehicle sustained almost no damage.” His airbag did not deploy. He “denied injury at the scene and did not seek any medical attention for over a month. Plaintiff’s fantastical deposition testimony aside, there is no evidence that the fire truck was on top of [his] small passenger vehicle so that it pinned him inside the vehicle, causing him to sustain the type of serious injuries that he asserted—over a month later—occurred to him.” The court also found that his “affidavit in support of his claim of indigency was insufficient to permit the trial court to make reasoned findings about his financial inability to pay the requested security bond. [His] affidavit provided conclusory statements attesting to his purported unemployment and inability to pay the bond, but failed to recite any financial information such as his assets, income, expenses, financial statements, and the like.” Thus, the court held that he failed to meet his burden to show “he could not afford the bond.” Affirmed.