Case Name: MOULTRIE v. DETROIT AUTOMOBILE INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1983-02-23
Citations: 123 Mich. App. 403
Docket Number: Docket No. 60718
Parties: MOULTRIE v DETROIT AUTOMOBILE INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE
Judges: Before: D. C. Riley, P.J., and D. F. Walsh and Wahls, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 123
Pages: 403–410

Head Matter:
MOULTRIE v DETROIT AUTOMOBILE INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE
Docket No. 60718.
Submitted December 7, 1982, at Detroit.
Decided February 23, 1983.
Mary and John Moultrie were injured in an automobile accident with an individual named White. The Moultries started an action in Wayne Circuit Court against White, seeking damages for injuries caused by the accident. Later, upon learning that White was uninsured, the Moultries filed a demand for arbitration of a disputed claim under the uninsured motorist provisions of their insurance policy with Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange (DAIIE). The arbitrators rendered an award of $11,500 in favor of Mary Moultrie and awarded no damages to John Moultrie. The Moultries filed motions for an order confirming the arbitration award and for entry of judgment in Wayne Circuit Court under the docket number of the White action but naming DAIIE as defendant. Michael J. Connor, J., granted plaintiffs’ motions. The order of judgment included an award of interest at five percent per annum from the date DAIIE received the demand for arbitration and an award of costs. Pursuant to a motion for rehearing, the trial court amended the order of judgment to provide for interest at six percent per annum from the date of plaintiffs’ filing of their complaint against White. DAIIE appeals. Held:
1. Arbitration awards are subject to the statutory provisions governing interest on a verdict which limit the award of interest to five percent per annum from the date of the award. The statutory prejudgment interest provision is not applicable to arbitration awards because such provision is applied only to civil actions, which, by definition, are started by the filing of a complaint. The filing of the action against White is ineffective as to DAIIE, which was not a party to that action. The "damages” language in the insurance policy does not create a contractual right to prejudgment interest, since the term "damages” does not include prejudgment interest.
References for Points in Headnotes
45 Am Jur 2d, Interest and Usury §§ 59, 60, 73, 96, 97.
44 Am Jur 2d, Insurance § 1553 et seq.
45 Am Jur 2d, Interest and Usury §§ 73, 74.
20 Am Jur 2d, Courts § 189.
22 Am Jur 2d, Damages § 264.
Insured’s right to recover prejudgment interest on amount of fire loss. 5 ALR4th 126.
5 Am Jur 2d, Arbitration and Award §§ 139, 166.
2. the costs of an arbitration proceeding may be taxed as allowable costs by the prevailing party along with the costs incurred in the circuit court in the confirming of the arbitration award and the reducing of the award to a judgment.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
D. F. Walsh, J., concurred in part and dissented in part. He concurred in' the determination with respect to prejudgment interest but dissented from the determination as to the taxation of the costs incurred by the prevailing party in the arbitration proceedings. He would hold that there is no statutory or court rule authority to tax the parties’ arbitration proceedings costs as part of the circuit court judgment on the arbitration award.
Opinion op the Court
1. Interest — Money Judgment — Statutes — Arbitration Awards — Civil Actions.
The statute authorizing a court to allow interest on a money judgment recovered in a civil action does not apply to an arbitration award because such proceedings are not the equivalent of a civil action (MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013).
2. Interest — Arbitration Awards — Date op Award — Statutes — Insurer — Insured.
Interest on an arbitration award, in a dispute between an insured and an insurer, is payable at the rate of five percent per annum commencing on the date of the award (MCL 438.7, 438.31; MSA 19.4, 19.15[1]).
3. Courts — Court op Appeals — Unpublished Opinions.
Unpublished opinions of the Court of Appeals are of no precedential value.
4. Interest — Prejudgment Interest — Damages — Insurance.
Prejudgment interest is not included within the meaning of the term "damages”; an insurance policy which provides that the insurer shall pay all sums the insured shall be legally entitled to recover as damages does not create a contractual obligation to pay prejudgment interest.
5. Arbitration — Costs.
Costs in confirming an arbitration award may be taxed as in all civil actions; the prevailing party in arbitration proceedings may tax the costs incurred in the arbitration proceedings as well as those costs incurred after the filing of the petition in circuit court (MCL 600.2401 et seq.; MSA 27A.2401 et seq.; GCR 1963, 769.12).
Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by D. F. Walsh, J.
6. Costs — Trial.
Costs are recoverable only when there is statutory authority providing for the awarding of costs.
7. Costs — Arbitration.
Neither the statute governing costs nor the court rule governing arbitration proceedings permits one to tax as costs the expenses of the parties in the arbitration proceedings (MCL 600.2401 et seq.; MSA 27A.2401 et seq.; GCR 1963, 769.12).
Theodore S. Andris, P.C. (by Theodore S. Andris and Philip R. Reed), for plaintiffs.
Dickinson, Mourad, Brandt, Hanlon & Becker (by Richard Haskins), and Gromek, Bendure & Thomas (by James G. Gross and Judith A. Curtis), for defendant.
Before: D. C. Riley, P.J., and D. F. Walsh and Wahls, JJ.

Opinion:
D. C. Riley, P.J.
This case involves an appeal from a judgment on an arbitration award and from a subsequent order modifying that judgment. The merits of the award itself are not challenged.
Plaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident on March 1, 1976, with an individual named White. On November 11, 1978, plaintiffs commenced a lawsuit against White, seeking damages for injuries caused by the accident. Sometime thereafter, plaintiffs discovered that White was uninsured. On August 10, 1979, plaintiffs filed a demand for arbitration of a disputed claim under the uninsured motorist coverage provisions of their insurance policy with defendant. That demand was received by Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange (DAIIE) on August 13, 1979. On February 6, 1981, the arbitrators rendered an award in favor of plaintiff Mary Moultrie in the amount of $11,500. Plaintiff John Moultrie was awarded no damages.
Sometime during the spring of 1981, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order confirming the arbitration award and a motion for entry of judgment. Plaintiffs brought those motions under the docket number assigned to their action against Mr. White, the individual involved in the accident, but named DAIIE as defendant. On October 9, 1981, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motions and entered an order confirming award of arbitrators and a judgment on award of arbitration which included an award of interest at five percent per annum from August 13, 1979, the date of defendant's receipt of plaintiffs' demand for arbitration, as well as costs.
The trial court subsequently granted plaintiffs' motion for rehearing and on October 9, 1981, it entered an order modifying its earlier judgment to "provide for interest at the rate established by MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013 of 6% [percent] per annum from" the date of plaintiffs' filing of their complaint against White, the uninsured motorist.
Defendant appeals as of right alleging that the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding interest, pursuant to MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, on the arbitration award from the date that plaintiffs filed their complaint against White, as it was not a party to that action. We agree.
In Osinski v Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Ex change, 69 Mich App 426, 428; 245 NW2d 76 (1976), this Court reversed an award of interest on an arbitration award, pursuant to MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, from the date of filing the arbitration award, noting:
"By its express terms § 6013 applies only to a money judgment recovered in a 'civil action' and permits interest to accrue from the date of filing the complaint. A civil action is commenced only 'by filing a complaint with the Court'. GCR 1963, 101; MCL 600.1901; MSA 27A.1901. In the instant case the arbitration proceedings were instituted by a filing of a claim for arbitration with the insurance company — not a complaint with the court. The pre-circuit court proceedings simply were not the equivalent of civil action, and therefore § 6013 does not authorize the payment or receipt of interest on an arbitration award entered prior to the filing of a complaint with the circuit court."
The Court went on to hold that, based on MCL 438.7; MSA 19.4 and MCL 438.31; MSA 19.15(1), the proper interest on the arbitration award was five percent from the date the award was made and not from the date of filing the demand for arbitration. Osinski, supra, pp 428-430. Accord Reinshuttle v Aetna Life & Casualty Ins Co, Inc, 72 Mich App 74; 248 NW2d 671 (1976); Babayan v Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exchange, 121 Mich App —; — NW2d — (1982). We are in accord with those decisions and, therefore, we hold that plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the arbitration award at the rate of five percent per annum from February 6, 1981, the date of the arbitration award.
Moreover, we note that plaintiffs' reliance on an unpublishéd opinion of this Court is misplaced since unpublished opinions are of no precedential value. See Borgess Hospital v Berrien County, 114 Mich App 385, 386, fn 1; 319 NW2d 354 (1982).
Inasmuch as defendant was not a party to plaintiffs' action against the uninsured motorist, White, it would be inappropriate to use the date of filing of that complaint as the date from which interest should commence.
Further, we reject plaintiffs' position that under the provisions of their insurance contract defendant was obligated to pay interest pursuant to MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013. Assuming, without deciding, that this issue was properly before the trial court, we would hold that the court erred in its interpretation of the contract.
The contract in question obligated the defendant to pay "all sums the insured shall be legally entitled to recover as damages". Defendant correctly points out that the term "damages" does not include prejudgment interest. Dittus v Geyman, 68 Mich App 433, 438-439; 242 NW2d 800 (1976), lv den 397 Mich 837 (1976). We conclude, therefore, that under the provisions of the insurance contract, defendant was not obligated to pay interest. Plaintiffs are only entitled to recover interest pursuant to MCL 438.7, 438.31; MSA 19.4, 19.15(1).
Defendant also contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding plaintiffs the costs of the arbitration proceedings. We disagree. An identical claim was rejected by this Court in its recent decision in Babayan, supra, wherein the Court held that MCL 600.2401 et seq.; MSA 27A.2401 et seq., authorizes circuit courts to award certain costs incurred in special proceedings. GCR 1963, 769.12 provides that costs in confirming an arbitration award will be taxed as in all civil actions, which, under GCR 1963, 526.1, means that costs will be allowed the prevailing party. Neither MCL 600.2401 et seq.; MSA 27A.2401 et seq., nor GCR 1963, 769.12, expressly limit allowable costs to those incurred after the filing of the petition in circuit court, and subrule 769.12 expressly provides that the circuit courts may allow "for the fees and expenses of the arbitrators".
We conclude that the trial court did not err in awarding costs as part of its order confirming the arbitration award. This case is remanded for modification of the award of interest pursuant to MCL 438.31; MSA 19.15(1).
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
No costs, neither party having prevailed in full.
Wahls, J., concurred.