Security for costs; MCR 2.109; In re Surety Bond for Costs; Reasonable & proper bond; Wells v Fruehauf Corp; Bond amount; Recoverable expenses; Attorney fees under MCL 500.3148; Dessart v Burak; Waiver by first raising an issue in a motion for reconsideration; Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC; Uninsured (UM) & underinsured (UIM) motorist benefits

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring plaintiff to post a $25,000 security bond after remand and dismissing the case when he failed to do so. The plaintiff sought PIP benefits and UM/UIM benefits arising from an auto accident. After prior appellate proceedings, the case returned to the trial court, where defendants moved for security for costs. On appeal, the court held that ordering security was reasonable and proper because the trial court “had a good reason to believe that plaintiff’s claims under the no-fault act were groundless or unwarranted.” The court next found no abuse of discretion in setting the bond at $25,000, explaining that MCR 2.109(A) looks to “all costs and other recoverable expenses,” and concluding that “the inclusion of ‘and other recoverable expenses’ most likely refers to consideration of attorney fees that can be recovered” under a statute such as MCL 500.3148. The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court was required to decide admissibility of surveillance evidence before ordering security, noting that “nothing in the rule dictates what the trial court may consider” and that “[t]he trial court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to set a security bond.” Finally, the court held that plaintiff waived any claim of financial inability to post the bond because it was raised for the first time on reconsideration. “‘An argument raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration does not preserve that claim of error for appellate review.’” Affirmed.