Yeo v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Ins. Co.
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Vertex International Management Services, L.L.C. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2011)
- Yazan Musleh v. State Farm Fire and Casualty (6th Cir. 2014)
- Ellout v. Detroit Medical Center (Mich. Ct. App. 2009)
- Lasalle Bank Midwest Na v. Computer Business World LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)
- Delores Proctor v. Saginaw County Board of Commissioners (Mich. Ct. App. 2025)
- Murray D Wikol v. Select Commercial Assets LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022)
- Fadi Abdul-Arim Markabani v. Hussain Jaliel Al-Rekabi (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)
- Brenda Ealey v. Benjigates Estates LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)
- Grimmer v. Lee (Mich. Ct. App. 2015)
- Raymond Obuchowski v. Dr Christopher Rancont (Mich. Ct. App. 2015)
- Mable Cleary Trust v. Edward-Marlah Muzyl Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)
- Mable Cleary Trust v. Edward-Marlah Muzyl Trust (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)
- Kalasho v. City of Eastpointe (6th Cir. 2003)
- Corhn 611013 v. Cooley (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2025)
- Potter v. Harbor Springs, City of (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2025)
- Davis 200318 v. Washington (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- James H Anderson v. Aramark Facility Service LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023)
- White 225440 v. Newcomb (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2022)
- Forrester v. Clarenceville School District (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2021)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court order that granted summary disposition to defendant on the basis that plaintiffs claim was time-barred. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff argues on appeal that her claim was not time-barred because the period of limitation was tolled during the pendency of defendant’s appeal to this Court in an earlier lawsuit. See Yeo v State Farm Ins Co, 219 Mich App 254, 258-259; 555 NW2d 893 (1996). We do not find plaintiff’s argument to be persuasive.
Pursuant to the tolling statute, MCL 600.5856; MSA 27A.5856, the period of limitation was tolled during the pendency of plaintiff’s original lawsuit, which was dismissed without prejudice. See Sherrell v Bugaski, 169 Mich App 10, 17; 425 NW2d 707 (1988). A dismissal without prejudice is not an adjudication on the merits and, therefore, the tolling statute applies. Federal Kemper Ins Co v Isaacson, 145 Mich App 179, 183; 377 NW2d 379 (1985). While we generally agree with plaintiff that tolling may extend during appellate proceedings, see Darin v Haven, 175 Mich App 144, 151-152; 437 NW2d 349 (1989), the period of limitation in this case was not tolled during the earlier appeal to this Court because the narrow issue raised in that appeal was whether the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim on the basis of her failure to comply with a condition precedent to filing a lawsuit should have been with prejudice. Nothing prevented plaintiff from thereafter *485 submitting to the requisite examination under oath, which she did, nor was defendant prevented from subsequently denying plaintiffs claim, which it did. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, MCR 7.208(A) did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain this lawsuit while the appeal of the earlier lawsuit was pending in this Court. Rule 7.208(A) only prohibits the court from which an appeal is taken from setting aside or amending the specific judgment or order appealed from. Accordingly, because plaintiff did not file the present lawsuit for nearly two years after defendant formally denied her claim, her lawsuit was time-barred. Summary disposition was properly granted.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.