Claim for reimbursement by a Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP) insurer; MCL 500.3175; Collateral estoppel; Mecosta Cnty Med Ctr v Metro Group; Res judicata; Foster v Foster; Privity; Law of the case; Rott v Rott; Notice & limitations for PIP claims; MCL 500.3145; Subrogation versus reimbursement; Allstate Ins Co v State Farm; Allen v Farm Bureau Ins Co; Appellate jurisdiction over fee order; MCR 7.203

Holding that plaintiff-insurer (Farmers) could seek statutory reimbursement under MCL 500.3175 and that defendant-insurer’s (Hudson) preclusion defenses failed, the court affirmed summary disposition for Farmers and declined to review a later attorney-fee order for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff serviced an assigned claim through the MACP after a priority dispute and paid the claimant over $967,000 in PIP benefits, then sought reimbursement from defendant, identified as highest priority. Defendant argued collateral estoppel, res judicata, law of the case, lack of notice under MCL 500.3145, and that Farmers was merely a subrogee. The court rejected the collateral estoppel argument because the reimbursement question had not been litigated and because issues “must be identical, and not merely similar” and “actually and necessarily litigated.” It also rejected res judicata and privity, explaining that Farmers’ reimbursement right is statutory and independent of the insured’s ability to recover directly and noting that “nothing in the no-fault act . . . conditions an assigned insurer’s reimbursement rights on the insured’s ability to recover directly from the higher-priority insurer,” and that privity requires parties to be “so identified in interest” that they assert the same legal right, which Farmers and the claimant did not. The court found the law of the case inapplicable because it “applies only to issues actually decided,” and the earlier appeal addressed only the claimant’s direct recovery under MCL 500.3145, not the insurer’s reimbursement under MCL 500.3175. It confirmed Farmers’ timeliness under MCL 500.3175(3) because the action was brought within one year of the last payment and after the responsible insurer was identified. The court characterized Farmers’ suit as reimbursement rather than subrogation, relying on Allstate and Allen, and thus not contingent on the claimant’s notice failure. Finally, because the fee order was entered after the claim of appeal, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review attorney fees.