Case evaluation sanctions under amended court rules MCR 2.403 & MCR 1.102; Webster v Osguthorpe; Retroactivity; Reitmeyer v Schultz Equip & Parts Co, Inc; RAD Constr, Inc v Davis; Authority to apply a prior version of a court rule

Holding that Webster applied retroactively, the court vacated the denial of case evaluation sanctions and remanded for the trial court to decide whether to apply the former or amended MCR 2.403 using MCR 1.102 and the Reitmeyer factors. Plaintiff fell in defendant’s store and sued for negligence and premises liability. After case evaluation in 7/21, in which plaintiff accepted and defendant rejected, the case proceeded to trial, where plaintiff obtained a verdict exceeding the evaluation. Plaintiff sought sanctions under the former MCR 2.403(O), but the trial court denied them, concluding it lacked authority to consider the old rule. On appeal, the court explained that our Supreme Court has since overruled RAD in Webster, holding that trial courts “did have the authority to consider whether to apply the old or new version of MCR 2.403 under MCR 1.102,” and should decide that question under Reitmeyer. Addressing retroactivity, the court emphasized that “Webster did not announce a new rule, and its purpose was solely to correct the error in RAD and return to the status quo under Reitmeyer,” that defendant’s reliance on RAD was limited because the rejection of case evaluation occurred long before RAD was decided, and that retroactivity is fair because “the trial court always had the authority to apply the old rule if it determined it was appropriate to do so under MCR 1.102.” It concluded that “all four factors favor retroactive application” here.