Rowe v. Lowry, Docket No. 109422

• Decision Date: 17 December 1990
• Docket Number: Docket No. 109422
• Parties: Jessie K. ROWE, Individually and as Next Friend of Lisa K. Brown, Plaintiff, v. Sharon Rose LOWRY and Gerald Lowry, Defendants, Cross-Plaintiffs, Appellees, and Washtenaw County Road Commission, Defendant, Cross-Defendant, Appellant. 186 Mich.App. 136, 463 N.W.2d 110
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 110

463 N.W.2d 110

Jessie K. ROWE, Individually and as Next Friend of Lisa K Brown, Plaintiff, v. Sharon Rose LOWRY and Gerald Lowry, Defendants Cross-Plaintiffs, Appellees and Washtenaw County Road Commission, Defendant Cross-Defendant, Appellant.

Docket No. 109422.

186 Mich.App. 136, 463 N.W.2d 110

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 26, 1990.

Decided Nov. 5, 1990.

Released for Publication Dec. 17, 1990.

[186 MICHAPP 137] Debolski & Dumasius by John G. Dumasius, Detroit, and Fred Grenn, Dearborn, for appellees Lowry.

Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, P.C. by Marcia L. Howe and Timothy Young, Livonia, for Washtenaw County Road Com'n.

Before MICHAEL J. KELLY, P.J., and GILLIS and GRIBBS, JJ.

MICHAEL J. KELLY, Presiding Judge.

Cross-defendant Washtenaw County Road Commission appeals by leave granted from a circuit court order setting aside a mediation award which had been accepted by the road commission and cross-plaintiffs Sharon and Gerald Lowry.

This case arises out of an automobile accident in [186 MICHAPP 138] which a car driven by Sharon Lowry struck a bridge abutment. Sharon and her passenger, Lisa Brown, were injured in the accident. Brown, who is represented in this action by Jessie Rowe, subsequently sued the Lowrys and the road commission. The Lowrys also filed a claim against the road commission for injuries sustained by Sharon in the accident. The road commission then filed a cross-claim against the Lowrys seeking contribution for sums it had paid Brown.

The three claims were mediated together and three separate awards were rendered: (1) $200,000 in favor of Brown versus the Lowrys and the road commission, jointly and severally; (2) $25,000 in favor of the Lowrys versus the road commission for the personal injuries of Sharon Lowry; and (3) zero award in favor of the road commission versus the Lowrys for contribution. All three parties accepted the award of $200,000 in favor of Brown. The Lowrys also accepted the remaining two awards. However, the road commission accepted the $25,000 award but rejected the zero award. The Lowrys then moved to set aside the $25,000 award on the ground that the road commission's rejection of the zero award constituted a rejection of the $25,000 award. The circuit court agreed and set both matters for trial. This appeal ensued.

The road commission claims on appeal that, under the court rules, a party need not accept or reject all awards pertaining to a particular opposing party.

The mediation process is governed by MCR 2.403. Subparagraph (L)(3)(a) provides that "as to any particular opposing party, the party must either accept or reject the evaluation in its entirety." According to MCR 2.403(K)(2), "The evaluation must include a separate award as to [each claim] filed in the action." The road commission [186 MICHAPP 139] argues that when the two subrules are read together, it is clear that a party must only accept or reject a specific award as to a particular opposing party and is not required to accept or reject all the awards as to that opposing party. However, we read MCR 2.403(K)(2) as indicating that an "evaluation" should include the compilation of awards rather than that each award should comprise a separate evaluation. We note that another panel of this Court in Henderson v. Sprout Bros, Inc., 176 Mich.App. 661, 666-667, 440 N.W.2d 629 (1989), has similarly interpreted this court rule, albeit...