Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits action; Appellate jurisdiction; MCR 7.203(A)(1); “Final judgment or final order”; MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i); Appeal from a consent judgment; Travelers Ins v Nouri; Failure to reserve a right to appeal; Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP); Henry Ford Health System (HFHS)

Holding that the original order in this case correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over this appeal and the order that reinstated this appeal was entered erroneously, the court vacated that order and dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff sued appellee-Farmers (which was assigned as her insurer under the MACP) alleging it unlawfully refused to pay her PIP benefits after she was injured while riding as a passenger in a shuttle bus owned and operated by appellee-HFHS, driven by appellee-Boshevski, and insured by appellant-Zurich. The trial court granted summary disposition for Farmers. It then denied Zurich’s motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the court found that “the April 2022 stipulated order did not reserve in any manner Zurich’s right to appeal or to challenge the July 2021 order granting summary disposition in favor of Farmers.” The court noted it “is certainly true that a party, although appealing from the final order in a case, ‘is free to raise on appeal issues related to other orders in the case.’ . . . But it is not a question whether an appellant is aggrieved by an earlier order; it must still be able to claim an appeal from the final order in order to challenge the earlier order. And it cannot do so if it consented or stipulated to the final order, unless it has reserved the right to do so in its stipulation to the order.” Zurich failed to do so here.