Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JEROME C. KOLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v

UNPUBLISHED May 2, 2000

No. 210746 Midland Circuit Court LC No. 96-006283-NO

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Smolenski and Collins, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from an order granting summary disposition to plaintiff pursuant to MCR 2.116(I). The trial court ruled that plaintiff's right to arbitrate his underinsured motorist benefits was not barred by a jury's earlier ruling that plaintiff's injuries did not arise out of the ownership, operation, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. We affirm. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7). Specifically, defendant asserts that plaintiff's present action to compel arbitration is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. We disagree. This Court reviews a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) and 2.116(I) de novo to determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Limbach v Oakland Co Bd of Co Rd Comm'rs, 226 Mich App 389, 395; 573 NW2d 336 (1997); Husted v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 213 Mich App 547, 551; 540 NW2d 743 (1995). Although the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are similar and are often treated as twin arms of a single doctrine, there are "characteristic differences between the two." Friedenthal et al., Civil Procedure,

Download JEROME C KOLE V CONTINENTAL INS CO.pdf

Michigan Law