Brent Matthew Grant v. Auto Owners Insurance Company

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BRENT MATTHEW GRANT, UNPUBLISHED June 20, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:53 PM v No. 370343 Oakland Circuit Court AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY and LC No. 2020-185375-NO HOME OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants. Before: WALLACE, P.J., and RICK and GARRETT, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff, Brent Matthew Grant, was injured in a motor-vehicle accident. He filed this breach-of-contract action against defendants Auto Owners Insurance Company and Home Owners Insurance Company (collectively “Auto Owners”) seeking uninsured motorist (UM) benefits. Following a jury verdict in his favor, Grant moved for case-evaluation sanctions under former MCR 2.403(O). The trial court granted the motion and entered a judgment in Grant’s favor. Auto Owners appeals by right, challenging the trial court’s decision to apply former MCR 2.403(O) and award case-evaluation sanctions rather than the amended court rule, which does not provide for case-evaluation sanctions. Because the trial court’s determination did not constitute an abuse of discretion in the circumstances of this case, we affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Grant was seriously injured in a head-on collision while driving his vehicle on a two-lane highway in California. Because no policy of insurance applied to the motorist who struck him or to the vehicle that the motorist was driving, Grant filed a claim for UM benefits with his insurer, Auto Owners. Grant’s policy with Auto Owners had a $1 million limit for UM coverage. Grant filed this action after Auto Owners denied the claim. The parties participated in case evaluation under MCR 2.403. The case-evaluation panel awarded Grant $125,000, and both Grant and Auto Owners rejected the award. The case proceeded to trial, which resulted in a jury verdict in Grant’s favor in the amount of $7.9 million. -1-  Thereafter, Grant moved for case-evaluation sanctions under former MCR 2.403(O). He argued that, before the Michigan Supreme Court amended MCR 2.403 effective January 1, 2022, MCR 2.403(O) required the imposition of case-evaluation sanctions against Auto Owners. Grant maintained that the trial court should apply the rule in effect at the time that the parties rejected the case-evaluation award because he relied on the previous rule, and both parties understood at the time that case evaluation occurred that sanctions could be imposed. He asserted that he did not engage in gamesmanship and that his trial counsel agreed to replace his previous attorney with the understanding that case-evaluation sanctions were “in play.” Grant further argued that allowing Auto Owners to escape sanctions would cause an injustice because both parties relied on the former rule, and his ability to recover sanctions was paramount because of the policy limit applicable to UM coverage. Auto Owners opposed Grant’s motion, arguing that MCR 1.102 required the trial court to apply the amended court rule because this action was pending on January 1, 2022, when the amended court rule took effect. Case evaluation occurred on October 7, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its order amending MCR 2.403 on December 2, 2021, and the amendment took effect on January 1, 2022. Auto Owners cited RAD Constr, Inc v Davis, 347 Mich App 716; 16 NW3d 328 (2023), overruled in part by Webster v Osguthorpe, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket Nos. 166627 & 166628), which it argued prohibited the imposition of case-evaluation sanctions in cases that were evaluated under the former rule but went to trial after the amendment took effect. Auto Owners maintained that it relied on RAD Constr when it proceeded to trial, believing that no case-evaluation sanctions could be awarded. Further, it argued that the facts of this case were identical to those in RAD Constr, which constituted binding precedent and prohibited the imposition of case-evaluation sanctions in this case. Finally, it maintained that Grant would not suffer an injustice if the new court rule, rather than the former court rule, was applied. The trial court granted the motion for case-evaluation sanctions. The court stated that RAD Constr did not prohibit case-evaluation sanctions in all cases and that the totality of the circumstances warranted the imposition of case-evaluation sanctions in this case