Opinion ID: 1691530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bronson Methodist Hosp v. ACIA

Text: This case is similar. In three circuit court files that were later consolidated, Bronson Methodist Hospital filed suit against ACIA and several insured persons. Again, the dispute concerned the hospital's charges to the insurer, and Bronson Methodist sought both declaratory relief and money damages. Following a bench trial, the circuit court issued an oral opinion in favor of Bronson Methodist. Two months later, the court entered this order: This matter having come before the Court after a trial on the merits, and the Court having rendered an Opinion dated September 19, 1994, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the customary amounts which have been charged to the Defendant for medical necessaries that arose from automobile accidents, and which have been charged to the Defendant under the Michigan No Fault law in effect on September 19, 1994, for their insureds, do not violate the customary charge provision of the No Fault Statute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, and held that the reasonableness of the expenses incurred in an automobile accident may be judged by comparison with rates charged by other institutions, and that the charges by Plaintiff are reasonable on the basis of those comparisons. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the parties have thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to submit a finding of amounts due Plaintiff from Defendant, which have been billed under the No Fault provisions, but remain unpaid. ACIA filed a claim of appeal. In response, counsel again received a letter from the clerk's office asserting that there was no final judgment. He then wrote a letter similar to the one he had sent in Children's Hosp, but the Court of Appeals nonetheless dismissed the appeal: The Court, pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(10), orders that the claim of appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the order appealed from is not a final order appealable by right. MCR 7.203. The order is not final because the amount of plaintiff's damages has yet to be determined. Defendants-appellants may claim an appeal from the order which determines the amount of plaintiff's recovery or damages. [Unpublished order, entered February 24, 1995 (Docket No. 181381).] As in Children's Hosp, ACIA has applied for leave to appeal.
As the Court of Appeals observed, one may file a claim of appeal from a final judgment or final order of the circuit court. MCR 7.203(A)(1). The phrase final judgment is reasonably clear on its face. Further, when these orders were entered in late 1994, MCR 2.604 [1] explained that partial judgments are ordinarily not final. Subsequent amendments that took effect in July [2] and September [3] 1995 even more clearly stated that a partial judgment is not a final judgment. Under the language in effect at the time these orders were issued, these were not final judgments. There had been no express determination that there is no just cause for delay, and there is no other basis for concluding that these were final judgments. Likewise, the revised language of the 1995 amendments demonstrates that these orders were not appealable as of right.
In his correspondence with the clerk's office at the Court of Appeals, counsel for ACIA evidenced a familiarity with the court rules discussed in the preceding section of this opinion. It was Boatman that compelled him to file the claims of appeal. Boatman was a no-fault case in which several insured persons sought personal injury benefits following an accident at a horse race track involving a starting gate that was permanently attached to an automobile. When benefits were denied, the plaintiffs sued their carriers. On cross-motions for summary disposition, the circuit court entered a document entitled partial judgment, which provided that plaintiff Boatman is entitled to all applicable Michigan No-Fault benefits from the defendant insurer. The partial judgment further indicated that the court was retaining jurisdiction to decide the amount in controversy if need be. Several months later, the defendant in Boatman moved for reconsideration. In response, the circuit court entered an order that stated that the motion was denied. However, the effect of the ruling was to reopen the question of liability. Again, both parties filed motions for summary disposition. After a hearing, the court granted the defense motion, thus finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits. The plaintiff appealed in Boatman, and the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the initial order (titled partial judgment) was in fact a final judgment, notwithstanding the court's failure to ascertain the amount of damages. Thus the circuit court was said to have erred by reopening the question of liability. The Court of Appeals declined to address the merits of the arguments presented by the insurer in support of the circuit court's determination that the plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits.
Counsel for ACIA is correct that Boatman is on point. However, counsel for ACIA is also correct that Boatman was wrongly decided. [4] As noted above, there is simply no basis in the court rules for concluding that the orders in these cases were final. The plaintiffs filed complaints seeking declaratory and monetary relief, and the circuit courts' orders granted only the requested declaration. Each order explicitly provided that there would be further proceedings with regard to the amount of liability. [5] There are, obviously, cases in which it is far more efficient to process an appeal after liability has been found, but before damages are calculated. One can readily imagine instances in which an extended and complex calculation of damages should be postponed, pending appellate consideration of a question of law. However, the existence of such a situation is a ground upon which to apply for leave to appeal, not an exception to the rules governing appeals of right. We affirm the dismissal orders entered by the Court of Appeals, and we remand these cases to the respective circuit courts for further proceedings. MCR 7.302(F)(1). BRICKLEY, C.J., and LEVIN, MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, BOYLE, RILEY, MALLETT and WEAVER, JJ., concur.