JAMES ELLER V MCLOUTH STEEL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JAMES ELLER, Individually and as Next Friend
of JAMES ELLER, III, a Minor,
Plaintiff,
v
METRO INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTING, INC.,
UNPUBLISHED
March 9, 2004
APPROVED FOR
PUBLICATION
April 15, 2004
9:00 a.m.
No. 241903
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 96-610379-NO
Defendant/Third-Party PlaintiffAppellee/Cross-Appellant,
and
POWER PROCESS PIPING, INC., and
MCLOUTH STEEL PRODUCTS
CORPORATION, d/b/a MCLOUTH STEEL,
Defendants,
Updated Copy
July 2, 2004
v
MID-AMERICAN GUNITE, INC.,
Third-Party DefendantAppellant/Cross-Appellee.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Sawyer and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This case involves Metro Industrial Contracting, Inc.'s (Metro), third-party action for
indemnification against third-party defendant Mid-American Gunite, Inc. (Gunite), arising out of
an accident at a construction site. In a prior appeal, this Court reversed the trial court's order
dismissing Metro's third-party complaint against Gunite, concluding that, under the broad
language of the indemnity contract between Metro and Gunite, "Metro is entitled to
indemnification from Gunite." Eller v McLouth Steel, unpublished opinion per curiam of the
Court of Appeals, issued June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 220337). On remand, the trial court
-1-
determined that Gunite was liable for the indemnification amount of $249,379.12, and entered
judgment in that amount. Additionally, it awarded Metro statutory prejudgment interest under
MCL 600.6013, but abated the accrual of interest while the case was previously pending on
appeal and further directed that interest on the judgment was to be abated pending this appeal.
Gunite now appeals as of right. Metro cross-appeals, challenging the trial court's computation of
interest. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Gunite first argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary disposition
and in entering judgment in favor of Metro where Metro already had been fully indemnified by
Power Process Piping, Inc. (PPP), a co-indemnitor. Additionally, Gunite argues that Metro's
indemnification claim was rendered moot by PPP's satisfaction of the full judgment amount
against Metro. We disagree.
A trial court's decision concerning equitable issues is reviewed de novo, although its
findings of fact supporting the decision are reviewed for clear error. Webb v Smith (After
Remand), 204 Mich App 564, 568; 516 NW2d 124 (1994). A trial court's decision to grant or
deny summary disposition is also reviewed de novo. Allen v Keating, 205 Mich App 560, 562;
517 NW2d 830 (1994).
An issue is moot and should not be reached if a court can no longer fashion a remedy.1
See In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 112; 667 NW2d 68 (2003). In this case, the
remedy sought by Metro is indemnification. Gunite's mootness argument is predicated on its
claim that, because Metro has been fully indemnified by PPP, Metro may no longer pursue an
independent claim for indemnification against Gunite. As to be discussed later, however,
because PPP is equitably subrogated to Metro's claim against Gunite, and because it was not
necessary that PPP be formally substituted for Metro, the trial court was not precluded from
fashioning the remedy of indemnification in favor of Metro against Gunite.
Initially, we note that PPP and Gunite were both potentially liable to indemnify Metro
under the terms of their respective written subcontract agreements with Metro that contained
identical indemnification clauses. Where two or more insurance companies are in the same tier
of priority—for example, both are primarily liable or both contain irreconcilable escape
clauses—an insured's loss is to be apportioned or prorated among the insurance companies on
the basis of policy limits. Pioneer State Mut Ins Co v TIG Ins Co, 229 Mich App 406, 415-416;
581 NW2d 802 (1998); Secura Ins Co v Cincinnati Ins Co, 198 Mich App 243, 246-247; 497
NW2d 230 (1993). By analogy, it follows that where PPP and Gunite signed identical indemnity
provisions, both are equally liable to indemnify Metro as provided in the agreements, and the
cost of doing so should be shared equally by both.
Furthermore, we observe that PPP's indemnification of Metro in full did not necessarily
extinguish Gunite's "otherwise proven obligation of indemnity." See Skinner v D-M-E Corp, 124
1
Metro argues that this issue is controlled by this Court's prior decision in this case. However,
we reject this claim because this Court explicitly declined to address Gunite's "mootness"
argument in the first appeal.
-2-
Mich App 580, 589; 335 NW2d 90 (1983) (settlement of underlying claim did not discharge
indemnity obligation); see also Lieberman v Solomon, 24 Mich App 495, 501; 180 NW2d 324
(1970) (where partner paid debt of corporation with understanding that his partners would
reimburse him a percentage of what he paid, acceptance of corporation's promissory note did not
discharge indemnity obligation). Exposure to legal defense costs and liability on a judgment
triggered Gunite's indemnity obligation, even if Metro was indemnified by PPP. But PPP's
indemnification of Metro does mean that Metro will receive a windfall by being indemnified
twice.
By satisfying Gunite's indemnification obligation, PPP became subrogated to Metro's
rights against Gunite. As our Supreme Court explained,
[e]quitable subrogation is a legal fiction through which a person who pays a debt
for which another is primarily responsible is substituted or subrogated to all the
rights and remedies of the other. It is well-established that the subrogee acquires
no greater rights than those possessed by the subrogor, and that the subrogee may
not be a "mere volunteer." [Auto-Owners Ins Co v Amoco Production Co, 468
Mich 53, 59; 658 NW2d 460 (2003), quoting Commercial Union Ins Co v
Medical Protective Co, 426 Mich 109, 117; 393 NW2d 479 (1986) (opinion by
Williams, C.J.) (citations omitted).]
"Equitable subrogation is a flexible, elastic doctrine of equity." Hartford Accident & Indemnity
Co v Used Car Factory, Inc, 461 Mich 210, 215; 600 NW2d 630 (1999). Its application is to be
determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. It has been applied to allow a no-fault insurance
company to collect worker's compensation benefits from a self-insured employer, Auto-Owners
Ins Co, supra at 55, to allow a surety to assert a contractor's right to payment, Old Kent BankSoutheast v Detroit, 178 Mich App 416, 418, 420-421; 444 NW2d 162 (1989), to allow a
security company's insurance carrier to assert a legal malpractice claim against the security
company's attorney, Atlanta Int'l Ins Co v Bell, 438 Mich 512, 521-524; 475 NW2d 294 (1991),
and in other situations. Although caution is indicated, "'the mere fact that the doctrine of
subrogation has not been previously invoked in a particular situation is not a prima facie bar to
its applicability.'" Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co, supra at 216 (citation omitted).
To avoid being a volunteer, a subrogee must be acting to fulfill a legal or equitable duty.
Id. at 216. Thus, "[w]hen an insurance provider pays expenses on behalf of its insured, it is not
doing so as a volunteer." Auto-Owners Ins Co, supra at 59. This is true even if the insurer's
obligation was only secondary to another carrier's, so that it would not have been liable to pay
benefits until the policy limits of the primary carrier were exhausted. See Auto Club Ins Ass'n v
New York Life Ins Co, 440 Mich 126, 128-129, 132-133; 485 NW2d 695 (1992). The rationale is
that an insurance company that pays a claim that another insurer may be liable for is "protecting
its own interests and not acting as a volunteer . . . [and] [i]s entitled to invoke the doctrine of
equitable subrogation." Auto-Owners Ins Co, supra at 60; see also Auto Club Ins Ass'n, supra at
132-133.
In the present case, PPP provided a defense and paid Metro's entire share of the principal
judgment pursuant to its indemnity agreement. By doing so, PPP protected its own interests by
avoiding another potential action for breach of contract. Therefore, contrary to Gunite's
argument, PPP was not a volunteer. By satisfying Gunite's obligation to indemnify Metro, PPP
-3-
became equitably subrogated to Metro's right to assert an indemnity claim against Gunite for half
of Metro's share of the principal judgment.
Where a party pays the debt of another pursuant to an obligation, it becomes the real
party in interest and a substitution of parties may be appropriate. See Neal v Neal, 219 Mich
App 490, 493-498; 557 NW2d 133 (1996) (insurer who paid legal defense costs pursuant to
contract was entitled to intervene to recover mediation sanctions). However, the court rules
allow a preexisting action to proceed with or without a substitution of parties. In particular,
MCR 2.202(B) provides:
If there is a change or transfer of interest, the action may be continued by
or against the original party in his or her original capacity, unless the court, on
motion supported by affidavit, directs that the person to whom the interest is
transferred be substituted for or joined with the original party, or directs that the
original party be made a party in another capacity. Notice must be given as
provided in subrule (A)(1)(c).
Although the trial court could have required that PPP be substituted as a third-party plaintiff, it
was not required to do so and it did not err in allowing Metro to proceed with its third-party
claim against Gunite.
Gunite next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow it to relitigate the jury's
allocation of fault for the underlying accident. We disagree. This is an issue of law that we
review de novo. Michigan Gas Utilities v Pub Service Comm, 200 Mich App 576, 581; 505
NW2d 27 (1993).
Gunite does not cite any authority holding that an indemnitor is entitled to relitigate an
underlying claim for which it had notice but chose not to participate. Rather, an indemnitor is
bound by a judgment against its indemnitee if it has notice and an opportunity to participate.2 Id.
at 581. In this case, Gunite had both.
Although Gunite was within its rights to move for summary disposition and attempt to
avoid its indemnity obligation, it pursued that legal strategy at its own risk. Cf. People v
Gonzalez, 468 Mich 636, 644-645; 664 NW2d 159 (2003); In re CR, 250 Mich App 185, 199;
646 NW2d 506 (2002). Gunite could have made arrangements to participate in the principal
action under a reservation of rights. It did not do so. Instead, after the order of dismissal was
reversed on appeal, Gunite sought to avoid the risk inherent in its legal strategy—that of being
bound by the judgment rendered in its absence—by relitigating parts of the underlying claim.
The trial court did not err in refusing to allow Gunite to do so. See also Pioneer State Mut Ins
Co, supra at 408-409, 416; Skinner, supra at 589.
2
An exception to this rule exists when there is a "showing of such circumstances of collusion
between the parties as would amount to a fraud upon it." Michigan Gas Utilities, supra at 581.
Although Gunite has alleged fraud and collusion, it relies only on the fact that PPP has already
indemnified Metro in full as support for this claim. This is insufficient to show fraud or
collusion.
-4-
In light of our resolution of the foregoing issues, we reject Gunite's additional claim that
the trial court erred in failing to impose sanctions against Metro pursuant to MCR 2.114(D) and
(E). Further, Gunite's argument that sanctions should be assessed against Metro because of
misrepresentations it allegedly made in its first appeal should have been raised as part of that
appeal and is not properly before us now. See MCR 7.216(C)(1)(b).
On cross-appeal, Metro argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a writ of
execution and in entering a judgment instead. We disagree. The interpretation of a court rule is
a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Hinkle v Wayne Co Clerk, 467 Mich 337, 340; 654
NW2d 315 (2002).
This Court's opinion in the prior appeal did not dispose of all remaining issues. In
particular, although this Court determined that Metro is entitled to indemnification from Gunite,
the amount of indemnification was not determined. Therefore, the trial court properly refused to
treat this Court's opinion as a final judgment resolving all issues for which a writ of execution
could issue. See Schoensee v Bennett, 228 Mich App 305, 317; 577 NW2d 915 (1998); see also
MCR 7.215(E)(1) and (F)(1)(b).
Metro also argues that the trial court erred in holding that the prejudgment interest rate
was to be based on the rate of interest for United States treasury notes in accordance with MCL
600.6013(8), rather than the twelve percent rate prescribed in MCL 600.6013(5). We disagree.
Metro's claim is predicated on our holding that this Court's opinion in the prior appeal was a final
judgment. Having rejected that claim, we conclude that no error occurred because the final
judgment in this case is that of the trial court which was entered on May 23, 2002, and which is
now on appeal. Thus, the case did not result "in a final, nonappealable judgment as of July 1,
2002." MCL 600.6013(6). Therefore, MCL 600.6013(6) controls and directs that interest is
calculated under subsection 8.
Metro further argues that the trial court erred in abating the accrual of interest during the
period of this appeal and the prior appeal. However, counsel for Gunite acknowledged at oral
argument that the question of abatement of prejudgment interest due to appellate delay was
resolved by Morales v Auto Owners Ins Co (After Remand), 469 Mich 487; 672 NW2d 849
(2003). In Morales, the Court held that MCL 600.6013 "makes no exception for periods of
prejudgment appellate delay." Id. at 491-492. Further, we conclude that the trial court
improperly ordered that no interest was to accrue during the present appeal because the delay
attendant to this appeal is properly attributed to Gunite. Accordingly, the portion of the trial
court's judgment abating accrued interest during both the prior appeal and this appeal is reversed,
and we remand for recalculation of the appropriate amount of interest.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of interest consistent
with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.