Motion to vacate an arbitration award; Whether res judicata & collateral estoppel precluded plaintiff’s personal protection insurance (PIP) claim; Whether the PIP claim could have been resolved at the trial on uninsured or underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits

Holding that the arbitration panel and the trial court did not err in concluding that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not preclude plaintiff’s PIP claim, the court affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion to vacate the arbitration award and granting plaintiff’s motion to enforce it. “Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident after he was allegedly struck by an unidentified hit-and-run driver who fled the scene.” He sued defendants, who insured his vehicle, for PIP benefits and UM/UIM “benefits. The parties agreed to arbitrate plaintiff’s PIP claim, while his UM/UIM claim proceeded to trial. A jury” found that he was not entitled to UM/UIM benefits. The arbitration panel awarded him “damages for his PIP claim, rejecting defendants’ arguments that the UM/UIM verdict precluded the PIP claim under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.” As to the former, the court found that it was illogical to conclude the “PIP claim could have been resolved at the UM/UIM trial given that both parties agreed to resolve the PIP claim in arbitration. Indeed, plaintiff initially brought both . . . claims in the same action before the trial court ordered the claims be split, consistent with the parties’ arbitration agreement. Defendants” did not explain how he “could have resolved the PIP claim during the UM/UIM case after the trial court ordered the parties to arbitrate the PIP claim. Thus, [his] PIP claim was not barred by res judicata.” As to collateral estoppel, the court found that the verdict did “not address an essential question of plaintiff’s PIP claim; i.e., whether any accident occurred as a result of [his] use of his motor vehicle, or whether [he] was injured. Instead, the jury only determined that plaintiff was not hit by a hit-and-run vehicle whose owner and operator could not be identified—an element that was only required in the UM/UIM case. Because a question of fact essential to [his] PIP claim was not actually litigated and determined by the judgment in the UM/UIM case, collateral estoppel does not apply.”