No-fault coverage; Voluntary dismissal; MCR 2.504(A)

The court concluded that the “trial court abused its discretion when it entered the order of dismissal submitted by [plaintiff-]Progressive without motion or stipulation.” Doing so precluded appellant-State Farm “from defending its interests as an interested party or otherwise seeking to diminish the prejudice arising from voluntary dismissal.” On appeal, State Farm argued “that the trial court abused its discretion when it applied its entry of default judgment against the Ahmed defendants to [State Farm’s insured] Wilson, and State Farm (both interested parties) by entering Progressive’s order of voluntary dismissal.” State Farm claimed that “the procedures described in MCR 2.504(A) were not followed.” Relatedly, it argued that “doing so precluded their right to defend their interests in this case.” The court agreed. “Progressive never moved for voluntary dismissal as is required under MCR 2.504(A)(2).” Instead, it appeared that it “merely submitted a copy of a voluntary dismissal order, which was later entered by the trial court. As such, Progressive may have incorrectly conflated or confused the procedure for a voluntary dismissal under MCR 2.504(A)(2) and the procedure delineated in MCR 2.602(B)(3) for entering written orders concerning matters already decided by the trial court.” Thus, the court agreed “with State Farm that MCR 2.504(A)(2) did not provide a basis for dismissing this case.” It also agreed “with State Farm that it, and Wilson, had a continuing legal interest in this case notwithstanding the default judgment against the Ahmed defendants.” Also, Progressive was “incorrect in asserting that there were no remaining claims or issues after the default of the Ahmed defendants.” Similarly, Progressive’s claim “that State Farm was not aggrieved because the voluntary dismissal presumptively was ‘without prejudice,’” also was unpersuasive. Reversed and remanded.