Insurer priority dispute; Motion to reopen the case; Finality of an order; MCR 2.604(A); Appellate jurisdiction; MCL 600.308(1); MCR 7.203(A)(1); Waiver; The Cadle Co v City of Kentwood; Distinguishing a motion to reopen the case from a motion for relief from judgment; MCR 2.612(C); Comparing Peterson v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc

The court held that the trial court’s order “was a final order for purposes of MCR 2.604(A) and MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i)5 because, with [appellant-AAA’s] reimbursement claim having been waived, it disposed of all the remaining claims in need of adjudication.” It also held that the trial court did not err in “applying MCR 2.612(C), and the time constraints imposed by subrule (C)(2), to AAA’s motion to reopen the case.” Plaintiff was injured when he was struck by a car while riding a motocross bike. The car was owned by AAA’s insured. Plaintiff was uninsured, but lived with his mother, who was insured by appellee-Home-Owners. AAA filed a third-party complaint against Home-Owners. The trial court ultimately granted summary disposition for AAA, finding Home-Owners was highest in priority. AAA and Home-Owners later indicated they had reached an agreement, and the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff and against Home-Owners, indicating it was a final order and closed the case. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s rulings as to plaintiff’s domicile and the nature of the motocross bike. AAA then filed a motion to reopen the case, arguing that its third-party complaint included a claim for reimbursement that was never adjudicated. The trial court found the motion was effectively a mislabeled motion for relief from judgment and denied it as untimely. The court rejected AAA’s claim that the trial court’s order “was not final and should not have resulted in closure of the case because it did not adjudicate all the claims and all the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” AAA participated in entry of the “order with full understanding that (1) it was being submitted as a final order; (2) the order bore the language required by MCR 2.602(A)(3) indicating that it was a ‘final order and closes the case’; and (3) Home-Owners intended to pursue a claim of appeal from the order to challenge the trial court’s earlier rulings” on the priority dispute. This last point was the most significant because Home-Owners could only claim an appeal by right from the order “if it was the first order to dispose of all the claims and adjudicate the rights and liabilities of all the parties. This fact should have been manifestly apparent to AAA given this Court’s previous denial of Home-Owners’s interlocutory appeal.” Thus, by clear implication, “AAA was waiving its right to adjudication of its unresolved reimbursement claim.” It also asserted the trial court erred by misconstruing its motion to reopen as a motion for relief from judgment. The court concluded AAA was seeking relief from the relevant portion of the order, “regardless of whether it had any complaint regarding the balance of the order granting partial summary disposition and judgment in favor of plaintiff.” Affirmed.