Court Opinion

ID: 9840066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 05:07:44.005209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:27.374057
License: Public Domain

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

JONATHAN F. BEARD,                                                     UNPUBLISHED
                                                                       September 14, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellant,

v                                                                      No. 360695
                                                                       Wayne Circuit Court
PROGRESSIVE MARATHON INSURANCE, also                                   LC No. 21-016469-NF
known as PROGRESSIVE MARATHON
INSURANCE COMPANY,

               Defendant-Appellee.

Before: PATEL, P.J., and SWARTZLE and HOOD, JJ.

SWARTZLE, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment).

        I respectfully concur in part, dissent in part, and concur in the judgment. I agree with the
majority’s analysis in all respects with the exception of the majority’s discussion of the plain-error
standard (including footnote 4) and Part IV. I would not reach the subrogation issue because it
was not raised—or, for that matter, glanced at, even with a side-eye—before the trial court. Under
our “raise or waive” jurisprudence in traditional civil matters, Napier v Jacobs, 429 Mich 222,
232-234; 414 NW2d 862 (1987), Beard waived appellate review on this claim. Although I
acknowledge that there is published case law for applying the Carines plain-error review in this
circumstance, see, e.g., Henderson v Dep’t of Treasury, 307 Mich App 1, 9; 858 NW2d 733 (2014),
for reasons similar to those set forth by Judge M.J. KELLY in his concurring opinion in Mr Sunshine
v Delta College Bd of Trustees, __ Mich App __, __; __ NW2d __ (2022) (M.J. KELLY, P.J.,
concurring), I believe that the sounder approach in traditional civil appeals like this is the “raise or
waive” rule.

        Until a conflicts panel of this Court (of which I am not calling for here, given that the matter
is not outcome determinative, MCR 7.215(J)(3)(a)) or our Supreme Court definitively settles this
matter (again), panels of this Court will continue to apply inconsistent standards of review to
unpreserved claims in cases like this. In the meantime, litigants and trial courts will suffer from
the uncertainty engendered by our inconsistency. While it might just be easier to get in-line with
the least-restrictive approach (here, the Carines plain-error standard), I believe that precedent,
principle, and prudence all favor the stricter standard in run-of-the-mill civil matters like this one.

                                                  -1-
        Accordingly, I respectfully dissent with respect to the majority’s decision to reach the
merits of the subrogation argument, and I otherwise concur as to the remainder of its opinion and
the judgment.

                                                           /s/ Brock A. Swartzle

                                               -2-