Auto negligence; Third-party no-fault claim under MCL 500.3135; Motion for relief from judgment under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f); Heugel v Heugel; Threshold injury; Closed-head injuries; MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(ii); Churchman v Rickerson

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by granting plaintiffs’ motion for relief from judgment, vacating the order granting defendant-Amazon’s motion for summary disposition, and reinstating plaintiffs’ claims. As such, it also abused its discretion by denying Amazon’s motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff sued defendants for injuries they sustained when they were rear-ended by a semi-truck. Amazon moved for summary disposition, arguing that none of the plaintiffs sustained a threshold injury, and even if they did, no excess wage loss claims could be pursued against it. The trial court initially dismissed plaintiffs’ claims and entered judgment for Amazon. But it later set aside its previous order granting Amazon summary disposition and granted plaintiffs’ motion for relief from judgment under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f). Later, it denied Amazon’s motion for reconsideration and plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal. On appeal, Amazon argued “the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs relief from judgment under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f)—thereby setting aside an order granting Amazon’s motion for summary disposition—when plaintiffs did not seek relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f), the decision reinstated claims plaintiffs actually conceded and abandoned, and no extraordinary circumstances existed to warrant such relief as required under that rule.” Amazon also argued the trial court should have granted its motion for reconsideration of that erroneous decision. The court agreed, finding the trial court “clearly abused its discretion in granting plaintiffs relief from that judgment on the stated grounds.” First, its “justification for granting plaintiffs relief from the judgment, entered in Amazon’s favor, under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f), i.e., because [it] missed two mentions of traumatic brain injuries in plaintiffs’ responsive brief, was erroneous.” Second, its justification for granting them relief from the judgment, “i.e., because [it] may have missed a reference to a ‘traumatic brain injury’ located somewhere in the huge stack of medical records submitted with plaintiffs’ responsive brief, was erroneous.” Third, the justification that “plaintiffs provided ‘new evidence,’ was erroneous.” The trial court also “should not have granted relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f) because even if [it] concluded that the third requirement of the test set forth in Heugel was met, i.e., ‘extraordinary circumstances [ ] exist that mandate setting aside the judgment in order to achieve justice,’ the substantial rights of Amazon, the opposing party, would be detrimentally affected by setting aside the judgment in Amazon’s favor.” Reversed and remanded.