Navigate Up
Sign In

146452 - Acorn Investments v Mich Basic Prop Ins Assoc

Acorn Investment Co.,
James C. Klemanski
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne – Curtis, D.)
Michigan Basic Property Insurance Association,
John D. Honeyman


Acorn Investment Company filed a claim with Michigan Basic Property Insurance Association, its fire insurance carrier, in connection with a May 2007 fire at Acorn’s rental property in Detroit. The insurer denied the claim, asserting that the policy had been canceled.
Acorn sued Michigan Basic for breach of contract, specific performance of the contract, and violation of the Uniform Trade Practices Act. In November 2008, the parties participated in case evaluation, which resulted in an $11,000 award in Acorn’s favor; Acorn accepted the award, but Michigan Basic rejected it.
The parties ultimately agreed to submit the case to an appraisal panel to determine the value of Acorn’s loss; the panel determined that $20,877 was the actual cash value of the loss. Acorn filed a motion for entry of judgment, and also requested sanctions against Michigan Basic for rejecting the November 2008 $11,000 evaluation. Acorn argued that, if the insurer had accepted that award, all of the proceedings that had ensued, including court appearances on motions, trial preparation, and the appraisal proceedings, would not have been necessary.
Michigan Court Rule 2.403 states in part:
(O) Rejecting Party’s Liability for Costs.
(1) If a party has rejected an evaluation and the action proceeds to verdict, that party must pay the opposing party’s actual costs unless the verdict is more favorable to the rejecting party than the case evaluation. However, if the opposing party has also rejected the evaluation, a party is entitled to costs only if the verdict is more favorable to that party than the evaluation.
(2) For the purpose of this rule “verdict” includes,
(a) a jury verdict,
(b) a judgment by the court after a nonjury trial,
(c) a judgment entered as a result of a ruling on a motion after rejection of the case evaluation.
Acorn contended that the appraisal award was a substitute for a jury determination of value and that, because the proposed judgment exceeded the case evaluation award, Acorn was entitled to case evaluation sanctions.
But the trial court judge denied Acorn’s motion for case evaluation costs, holding that Acorn’s “situation [did] not fit within the definition of ‘Verdict’ under [MCR 2.403(O)(2)].” Acorn appealed, but in a published per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court, ruling that “the appraisal process was effectively an arbitration, and an order or judgment entered pursuant to an arbitration or settlement is not a ‘verdict’ within the meaning of MCR 2.403(O)(2)(c).”
Acorn appealed. In a June 7, 2013 order, the Supreme Court said it would hear oral argument on whether to grant leave to appeal “or take other action.” The Court directed the parties to “address whether the Wayne Circuit Court judgment in this case amounted to a ‘verdict’ that entitled the plaintiff to case evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O)(2)(C).”