RECEIVED by MSC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM...Exhibit UU 6-2-2016 Final Orders of Judgment Exhibit VV...

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-------------r ----------~

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE SUPREME COURT

MARIE HUNT, Personal Representative Estate of EUGENE WAYNE HUNT, Deceased,

vs

Plaintiff/Garnishor Plaintiff-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant,

ROGER DRIELICK, ET AL Defendants-Appellees,

vs

EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Garnishee Defendant-Appellant.

BRANDON JAMES HUBER, Plaintiff/Garnishor Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,

vs ROGER DRIELICK, ET AL

Defendants-Appel lees,

vs



THOMAS LUCZAK and NOREEN LUCZAK, Plaintiff/Garnishor Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,


Defendants-Appellees,

vs


Garnishee Defendant/Appellant.

MSC No. 157476 COA No. 333630 Lower Court No. 96-3280-N I (Bay County) CONSOLIDATED

GARNISHEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

PROOF OF SERVICE

MSC No. 157477 COA No. 333631 Lower Court No. 97-3238-NI (Bay County) CONSOLIDATED

MSC No. 157478 COA No. 333632 Lower Court No. 96-3328-N I (Bay County) CONSOLIDATED

GARAN LUCOW MILLER PC NICOLETTE S. ZACHARY (P49522) Co-Counsel for Garnishee Def-Appellant

Empire Fire and Marine Ins Co 1111 W. Long Lake Rd, Ste 300 Troy, Ml 48098-6333 248/641-7600 [email protected]

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-----r --------~~. --

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................................................... iii

Counter-Statement of Question Presented ................................................................................................... vi

Counter-Statement Regarding JudgmenUOrder Being Appealed and Relief Sought.. .................................. 1

Counter-Statement of Material Facts and Proceedings ................................................................................. 1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1

Factual and Procedural Background ........................................................................................................ 2

Argument ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

I. Cross-Appellants' Cross-Application For leave To Appeal should be denied on the grounds that the Court of Appeals properly ruled that pursuant to the terms of the Empire Insurance Policy's Judgment Interest Clause, Empire is not subject to postjudgment interest in excess of policy limits with respect to the underlying March 14, 2000 Consent Judgments against the Drielicks pursuant to the express terms of the Empire Policy . ................................................................................................................................. 4

Standard of Review ........................................................................................................................... 4

Law Regarding Insurance Contract Interpretation ............................................................................ .4

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 6

II. Cross-Appellants' Cross-Application For Leave To Appeal should be denied on the grounds that the Trial Court ruled that the only relevant Complaints for purposes of determining judgment interest are the original 1996 and 1997 Complaints, and Garnishor Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants did not file any cross-appeal in the Court of Appeals challenging the Trial Court's decision such that the issue was not preserved for appeal and is not properly before this Court .......................................................................................... 11

Standard of Review ......................................................................................................................... 11

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Relief Requested .......................................................................................................................................... 11

-----r

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--- ------- r -------~----- -

Index of Exhibits (Unless otherwise indicated)

(All Exhibits are attached to Empire's 4-3-2018 Application for Leave to Appeal)

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit G

Exhibit H

Exhibit I

Exhibit J

Exhibit K

Exhibit L

Exhibit M

Exhibit N

Exhibit 0

Exhibit P

Exhibit Q

Exhibit R

Exhibit R-1

Exhibit R-2

Exhibit R-3

Exhibit S

Exhibit T

Exhibit U

Exhibit V

Exhibit W

Exhibit X

Exhibit Y

Exhibit Z

6/26/14 Michigan Supreme Court Opinion

11 /20/12 Court of Appeals Opinion

10/5/04 Court of Appeals Opinion

4/17/06 Stipulation for Bench Trial on the Briefs

7/12/10 Opinion and Order of Trial Court

7 /12/10 Order on Objection and Motion for Reconsideration

Pre-2004 Trial Court Orders

2/4/02 Transcript for M for Recon

9/20/02 Transcript for M for Entry of Judgment

12/16/02 Transcript for M for Entry of Order Re: Judgments

9/21/07 Transcript - Trial Court Oral Argument after 2004 Remand

Register of Actions - Hunt

Register of Actions - Huber

Register of Actions - Luczak

Empire Non-Trucking Insurance Policy

2/15/99 Roger Drielick Deposition I (RD Tr I)

5/24/01 Roger Drielick Deposition II (RD Tr II)

5/22/98 Corey Drielick Deposition (CR Tr)

Corey Drielick Statement 1



1/11/99 Bill (William) Bateson Deposition I (BB Tr I)

7/22/05 Bill (William) Bateson Deposition II (BB Tr II)

9/29/98 Jamie Bateson Deposition I (JB Tr I)

7/22/05 Jamie Bateson Deposition II (JB Tr II)

1995 Annual Report of GLC

8/25/05 Amy Howlett Deposition (AH Tr)

GLC Cab Card

Photographs of Drielick Truck with GLC Placards

ii

Exhibit AA GLC Delivery Receipts

Exhibit BB Billing Invoices between Drielick Trucking and GLC

Exhibit CC GLC/GLL checks to Roger Drielick/Drielick Trucking

Exhibit DD 1995 Sargent Trucking Master Lease Agreement with Roger Drielick

Exhibit EE 1996 Post-Accident Sargent Trucking Master Lease Agreement with RogerDrielick

Exhibit FF Auto-Owners Insurance Policy issued to GLC

Exhibit GG Commercial Union Insurance Policy issued to Sargent Trucking

Exhibit HH 1995 & 1996 Application for Motor Carrier Authority and Renewal Applicationsigned by Bill Bateson

Exhibit II Corey Drielick’s driver log book

Exhibit JJ Assignment, Trust, and Indemnification Agreements

Exhibit KK Excerpt from Garnishor Plaintiffs’ prior Trial Brief (2006)

Exhibit LL Excerpt from Garnishor Plaintiffs’ 2010 Court of Appeals Brief

Exhibit MM Original Requests and Writs of Garnishment

Exhibit NN March 2000 Drielick Consent Judgments

Exhibit OO 8-14-2015 Transcript – Oral Argument after Remand

Exhibit PP 11-30-2015 Transcript – Motion for Entry of Judgment

Exhibit QQ 1-27-2016 Transcript – Continued Hearing on Motion for Entry of Judgment

Exhibit RR 6-2-2016 Transcript – Continued Hearing on Motion for Entry of Judgment andMotion to Post Insurance Policy as Appeal Bond

Exhibit SS 9-28-2015 Trial Court Opinion and Order

Exhibit TT 1-28-2016 Interim Order following 1-27-2016 hearing

Exhibit UU 6-2-2016 Final Orders of Judgment

Exhibit VV 12-14-2017 Court of Appeals Opinion

Exhibit WW 2-20-2018 Court of Appeals Order denying Garnishor Plaintiffs’ Motion for PartialReconsideration

Exhibit XX 6-23-2016 Empire Claims of Appeal (attached)

Exhibit YY Schultz v AAA of Michigan case (attached)

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- -- -----------------1

Table of Authorities

Allstate Ins Co v Freeman, 432 Mich 656,443 NW2d 734 (1989) ....................................................................................................... 5

Alton M Johnson Co v MAI Co, 463 NW2d 277 (Minn. 1990) ..................................................................................................................... 8

Auto Club Group Ins Co v Marzonie, 447 Mich 624; 527 NW2d 760 (1995) ....................................................................................................... 5

Auto-Owners Ins Co v Churchman, 440 Mich 560; 489 NW2d 431 (1992) ................................................................................................ 5, 9, 10

Besic v Citizens Ins Co of the Midwest, 290 Mich App 19, 26; 800 NW2d 93, 97 (2010), app den 489 Mich 895 (2011) ....................................... 6

Butcher v Department of Treasury, 425 Mich 262; 389 NW2d 412 (1986) ...................................................................................................... 11

Century Surety Co v Charron, 230 Mich App 79; 583 NW2d 486 (1998) .................................................................................................. 5

City of Grosse Pointe Park v Michigan Municipal Liability and Property Pool, 473 Mich 188; 702 NW2d 106 (2005) ......................................................................................................... 5

Cosby v Pool, 36 Mich App 571; 194 NW2d 142 (1971) .................................................................................................. 9

Cottrill v Michigan Hospital Service, 359 Mich 472; 102 NW2d 179 (1960) ....................................................................................................... 9

Fragner v American Comm Mut Ins Co, 199 Mich App 537,540; 502 NW2d 350 (1993) .......................................................................................... 5

Glen L. Olson, Inc v R L Thompson Enterprises, Inc, 88 Ore App 309; 745 P 2d 1227 (1987), reversed and remanded by 306 Ore 320; 759 P 2d 1087 (1988) ............................................................................................................................... 8

Grand Trunk Western R Co v Pre-Fab Transit Co, Inc, 46 Mich App 117, 127; 207 NW2d 469 (1973) ................................................................................... 6, 7, 8

Group Ins Co v Czopek, 440 Mich 590,596; 489 NW2d 444 (1992) ................................................................................................. 5

iii

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-------r ------~-~--~

Hastings Mut Ins Co v Safety King, Inc, 286 Mich App 287; 778 NW2d 275 (2009) ................................................................................................ 5

Henderson v State Farm Fire & Casualty Co, 460 Mich 348; 596 NW2d 190 (1999) ................................................................................................... .4, 5

KnoxvKnox, 337 Mich 109, 120; 59 NW2d 108 (1953) ................................................................................................. 5

Lisiewski v Countrywide Ins Co, 75 Mich App 631,636; 255 NW2d 714 (1997) .......................................................................................... 1

Matich v Modern Research Corp, 430 Mich 1; 420 NW2d 67 (1988) .................................................................................................... 1, 9, 10

McKusick v Travelers Indemnity Co, 246 Mich App 329,333; 632 NW2d 525 (2001) ........................................................................................ 5

Michigan Harness Horsemen's Assoc v Racing Comm'r, 123 Mich App 388,393; 333 NW2d 292 (1983) ....................................................................................... 11

Michigan Millers Mut Ins Co v Bronson Plating Co, 445 Mich 558, 567; 519 NW2d 864 (1994) ................................................................................................. 5

Port Huron Area School Dist v Port Huron Ed Ass'n, 120 Mich App 112, 116; 327 NW2d 413 (1982) ........................................................................................ 5

Rohl v Leone, 258 Mich App 72; 669 NW2d 579 (2003) ................................................................................................. 11

Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457,461; 703 NW2d 23 (2005) ................................................................................................. 4

Schultz v AAA Michigan, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals (Docket No. 201175, 5/28/99) .................... 6, 7, 8

Sherman-Nadiv v Farm-Bureau General Ins Co, 282 Mich App 75; 761 NW2d 872 (2008) .................................................................................................... 5

Smart v New Hampshire Ins Co, 148 Mich App 724; 304 NW2d 772 (1985) ................................................................................................ 6

State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Roe, 226 Mich App 258,263; 573 NW2d 628,631 (1997) ................................................................................ 5

Ward v DA/IE, 115 Mich App 30, 35; 320 NW2d 280 (1982) ........................................................................................ .7, 8

iv

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- -- -- ------- -----------1 --------~-- --1 ------------

Westchester Fire Ins Co v Ring Bros Heating Co, 491 F 2d 711 (WD Mich 1974) .................................................................................................................. 9

Whitney v Faulkner, 95 P3d 270 (Utah 2004) ........................................................................................................................... 7

Woodman v Kera, 486 Mich 228, 234, n 6; 785 NW2d 1 (2010) ........................................................................................... 11

Statutes

MCL 600.6013 ............................................................................................................................................ 6, 7

MCR 7.207 ................................................................................................................................................... 11

Treatises

12 Am Jur, p 848 ........................................................................................................................................... 5

V

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

Counter-Statement of Questions Presented

I. Should Cross-Appellants' Cross-Application For Leave To Appeal be denied where the Court Of Appeals properly ruled that pursuant to the terms of the Empire Insurance Policy's Judgment Interest Clause, Empire is not subject to post-judgment interest in excess of policy limits with respect to the underlying March 14, 2000 Consent Judgments against the Drielicks pursuant to the express terms of the Empire Policy?

Garnishor Defendant-Appellant Empire answers: "Yes."

Cross-Appellants answer: "no."

II. Should Cross-Appellants' Cross-Application For Leave To Appeal be denied where the Trial Court ruled that the only relevant Complaints for purposes of determining judgment interest are the original 1996 and 1997 Complaints, and Garnishor Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants did not file any cross-appeal in the Court of Appeals challenging the Trial Court's decision such that the issue was not preserved for appeal and is not properly before this Court?

Garnishor Defendant-Appellant Empire answers: "Yes."

Cross-Appellants answer: "no."

vi

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-----------~r -~---~---- I ----------- -

Counter-Statement Regarding Judgment/Order Being Appealed and Relief Sought

Cross-Appellants1 seek to appeal the portion of the Court of Appeals' December 14, 2017 decision

correctly holding that Empire is not subject to liability for payment of post-judgment interest in excess of

policy limits after the date of the underlying March 14, 2000 Consent Judgments entered against the

Drielicks and the February 20, 2018 Court of Appeals Order denying Cross-Appellants' Motion for

Reconsideration. The central theme of the Cross-Application for Leave is that these post-judgment

garnishment proceedings have been ongoing for many years and that it would be unfair to Cross

Appellants if Empire is not required to pay post-judgment interest from the date of the March 14, 2000

Consent Judgments through the present, a position which has no basis whatsoever in Michigan law. The

law governing post-judgment interest is set forth in Matich v Modern Research Corp, 430 Mich 1; 420

NW2d 67 (1988), which provides that whether a party may recover post-judgment interest in excess of

insurance policy limits is governed by the express terms of the insurance policy.

In the instant case, the Empire Non-Trucking Policy's judgment interest clause provides in pertinent

part:

SECTION II - LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR NON-TRUCKING USE

A. COVERAGE

1 Cross-Appellants self-identify themselves as Cross-Appellants identify themselves as each respective Plaintiff, GLC, and Sargent Trucking in order to characterize themselves as pursuing this post-judgment garnishment proceeding as judgment creditors only and not through assignments taken from Empire's insureds, the Drielicks in an attempt to side-step around the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the Empire Policy does not provide for payment of post-judgment interest in excess of policy limits in suits Empire does not defend and that the issue of breach of the duty to defend under the Policy is not before the Court in this post-judgment garnishment proceeding. This illogical tactic actually bars Cross-Appellants from pursuing an alleged breach of the insurance contract's duty to defend because that right belongs solely to Empire's insureds, the Drielicks. See 12-14-2017 Court of Appeals Opinion citing Lisiewski v Countrywide Ins Co, 75 Mich App 631, 636; 255 NW2d 714 (1997), Ex. W. Cross-Appellants cannot claim that for purposes of liability they are assignees of the Drielicks, but for purposes of judgment interest they are judgment creditors only. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the issue of an alleged breach of the duty to defend under the insurance contract was never before the trial court in this post-judgment garnishment proceeding, and in order to pursue such a claim as assignees of the Drielicks, Cross-Appellants would have been required to file a separate lawsuit. They chose not to do so.

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

* * *

2. COVERAGE EXTENSIONS a. Supplementary Payments. In addition to the Limit of Insurance, we will pay for the

"insured": * * *

(6) All interest on the full amount of any judgment that accrues after entry of the judgment in any "suit" we defend; but our duty to pay interest ends when we have paid, offered to pay or deposited in court the part of the judgment that is within our Limit of Insurance.

* * *

SECTION V - DEFINITIONS

L. "Suit" means a civil proceeding in which damages because of "bodily injury," "property damage," or "covered pollution cost or expense," to which this insurance applies are alleged.... (Emphasis added.) See Empire Policy, Ex. 0.

It is undisputed that the March 14, 2000 Consent Judgments against the Drielicks are in excess of

the $750,000 Empire policy limit and that Empire did not defend the Drielicks in the underlying personal

injury lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, based on the unambiguous, valid, enforceable terms of the

Empire Non-Trucking Policy, Empire is not subject to liability for payment of post-judgment interest in

excess of the $750,000 policy limits after March 14, 2000.

In their Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the December 14, 2017 Court of Appeals decision and

in this Cross-Application for Leave, Cross-Appellants seek to argue that the Writs of Garnishment constitute

complaints for purposes of determining judgment interest and that Empire is subject to liability for pre

judgment interest from the dates of the December 2000 Writs of Garnishment through the June 2, 2016

Judgments on the Writs of Garnishment entered against Empire. However, the trial court held that the only

relevant Complaints for purposes of determining judgment interest are the underlying 1996 and 1997

personal injury Complaints filed by the Plaintiffs, and Empire did not appeal that portion of the trial court's

rulings, and Cross-Appellants did not file any cross-appeal in the Court of Appeals. See Ex. TT, 1-28 2016

Interim Order. Therefore, this issue was not preserved for appeal and is not properly before this Court.

With respect to the judgment interest issue, the Court of Appeals engaged in a thorough, well

articulated analysis and reached the correct result. Ex. W. The Court of Appeals also properly denied the

2

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

motion for partial reconsideration. Ex. WW. Empire therefore requests that this honorable Court deny

Cross-Appellants' Cross-Application for Leave to Appeal.

3

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--r -------~~- -T

Counter-Statement of Material Facts and Proceedings

Introduction

Garnishee Defendant Empire incorporates by reference its Statement of Material Facts and

Proceedings from its Application for Leave to Appeal filed with this Court on April 3, 2018. The following

Counter-Statement of Material Facts And Proceedings will be limited to those matters concerning the

judgment interest issue.2 Garnishee Defendant Empire notes that the specific issue raised in the Cross

Application for Leave is not properly before the Court as the trial court's ruling on the issue was never

appealed.

In the trial court, Cross-Appellants filed a motion for entry of judgment on the writs of garnishment

following the trial court's erroneous September 28, 2015 ruling against Empire on the liability issues. An

initial hearing was held on November 30, 2015, at which time the trial court requested that the parties

provide supplemental briefing on multiple issues pertaining to whether Empire is obligated to pay judgment

interest in excess of the policy limits. Exhibit PP.

On January 28, 2016, the trial court issued an Order following a January 27, 2016 hearing

memorializing the trial court's ruling that the only relevant Complaints for purposes of determining judgment

interest are the original underlying 1996 and 1997 Complaints filed by the Plaintiffs. See Ex. QQ, 1-27-2016

Transcript; Ex. TT, 1-28-2016 Order. Empire did not appeal the 1-28-2016 Order in its Claim of Appeal,

and Garnishor Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants did not file any cross-appeal. Therefore, the Cross-Application for

2 Cross-Appellants' statement of material proceedings and facts fails to include any citation to the Trial Court Record/Record On Appeal. Cross-Appellants also make reference to the alleged content of the settlement agreements entered into by Plaintiffs, GLC, and Sargent with the Drielick Defendants, which are not part of the Trial Court Record/Record on Appeal. In fact, it is unclear whether the aforesaid settlement agreements were ever provided to Empire or its attorneys as Empire was not party to those settlements. Nevertheless, based on Cross-Appellants' own representations, they agreed not to pursue collection of the Drielick Consent Judgments against the Drielicks personally. Therefore, even if the issue of whether Empire breached a duty to defend the Drielicks under the Empire insurance policy was before the Court, Empire's insured, Roger Drielick, did not sustain any damages as he has no personal exposure for payment of the March 2000 Consent Judgments. However, breach of the duty to defend was never before the Court in these cases.

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

T -- --- ---r --i -------

_ Leave should be denied.

Moreover, Cross-Appellants erroneously argue that there are three discrete periods with respect to

the determination of judgment interest i.e. the period from the date of the original complaints to the March

14, 2000 Consent Judgments (Pre-judgment interest period), the period from the March 2000 Consent

Judgments to the December 4, 2000 date the Writs of Garnishment were issued by GLC (Post-Judgment

Period), and a third unprecedented period from the date the December 4, 2000 Writs of Garnishment

through the entry of the June 2, 2016 Judgments against Empire (a purported new pre-judgment interest

period). For relevant dates, see Registers of Action, Ex. L, M, & N. Cross-Appellants now erroneously

argue that Empire is obligated to pay "pre-judgment" interest in excess of Empire's policy limits for the

period from December 4, 2000 through June 2, 2016. Contrary to Cross-Appellants' assertions, pre

judgment interest does not re-trigger when a writ of garnishment is issued. Cross-Appellants have failed to

present any binding Michigan law supporting this illogical argument.

The only relevant Complaints for purposes of determining judgment interest are the original

personal injury Complaints filed by the Plaintiffs in 1996 and 1997. Any judgment interest which may have

accrued after entry of the March 14, 2000 Consent Judgments against the Drielicks is post-judgment

interest, and pursuant to the express terms of the Empire policy, Empire is not subject to liability for post

judgment interest in excess of policy limits (i.e. a risk Empire did not assume) in lawsuits it did not

defend.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Empire Policy's judgment interest clause provides in pertinent part:

SECTION II - LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR NON-TRUCKING USE

A. COVERAGE * * *

2. COVERAGE EXTENSIONS a. Supplementary Payments. In addition to the Limit of Insurance, we will pay for the

"insured":

2

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

* * * (6) All interest on the full amount of any judgment that accrues after entry of the

judgment in any "suit" we defend; but our duty to pay interest ends when we have paid, offered to pay or deposited in court the part of the judgment that is within our Limit of Insurance.

* * *

SECTION V - DEFINITIONS

-----·---r

L. "Suit" means a civil proceeding in which damages because of "bodily injury," "property damage," or "covered pollution cost or expense," to which this insurance applies are alleged.... (Emphasis added.) See Empire Policy, Ex. 0.

At the January 27, 2016 trial court hearing, the trial court ruled on the question of whether the writs

of garnishment constituted "complaints" for purposes of determining judgment interest and stated in

pertinent part:

THE COURT: ... We had a number of issues to deal with today. Let me start by telling you that I do agree that garnishment with Empire is an ancillary proceeding and that ... the date of the complaint filed [in the three personal iniury cases) would be the date that interest begins to accrue . ... I think garnishment is simply a matter of attaching an asset ... that belongs to somebody ... that you have a judgment against and that's really in the form of an order. Judgment in a garnishment matter is more of an order to turn over the asset, and for that I rely on Ward [v] Detroit Auto Insurance, 115 Mich App 30. I also think that Grand Trunk Western Railroad [v] Pre-Fab Transit, 46 Mich App 117, is instructive. (Emphasis added.) See Ex. QQ, 1-27-2016 Transcript, p 6.

The January 28,. 2016 Order issued by the trial court memorialized the aforesaid ruling. See Ex.

TT, 1-28-2016 Order. Empire did not appeal the trial court's determination that the only relevant Complaint

for purposes of determining judgment interest are the original 1996 and 1997 Complaints filed by the

Plaintiffs. See Empires' Claim of Appeal, Ex. XX (attached.) Moreover, Garnishor Plaintiffs/Cross

Appellants did not file any cross appeal in the Court of Appeals. In short, the trial court's ruling that the

original personal injury Complaints filed in 1996 and 1997 are the only relevant Complaints for purposes of

judgment interest has not been appealed and remains the law of the case.

With respect to post-judgment interest, the Court of Appeals held that pursuant to the terms of the

Empire Insurance Policy post-judgment interest clause, Empire is not obligated to pay post-judgment

interest in excess of the policy limits for judgment interest accruing after the entry of the underlying March

3

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

14, 2000 Consent Judgments against the Drielicks. Ex. W, 12-14-2017 COA Opinion. Specifically, the

Court stated:

Empire argues that the trial court erred by finding that it was subject to liability under MCL 600.6013 for payment of postjudgment interest because the express language of the "Supplementary Payments" provision of the policy limited its obligation to pay postjudgment interest to suits it defends. We agree ....

Our obligation is to give effect to the clear language of the insurance contract and not to invest or create an ambiguity and then resolve it to expand coverage. There is no ambiguity in Empire's interest clause. It clearly provides that postjudgment interest will be paid only in suits in which Empire assumes the defense .... Under the plain language of the insurance policy at issue in this case, ... Empire is not obligated to pay postjudgment interest because Empire did not defend the underlying suits. Ex. W, 12-14-2017 COA Opinion.

Empire further notes that the Empire Policy's judgment interest clause specifically addresses post

judgment interest in excess of insurance policy limits, a risk it did not assume when it issued the

insurance policy to Roger Drielick. On February 20, 2018, the Court of Appeals properly denied Cross

Appellants' motion for partial reconsideration.

Argument

I. Cross-Appellants' Cross-Application For Leave To Appeal should be denied on the grounds that the Court of Appeals properly ruled that pursuant to the terms of the Empire Insurance Policy's Judgment Interest Clause, Empire is not subject to post-judgment interest in excess of policy limits with respect to the underlying March 14, 2000 Consent Judgments against the Drielicks pursuant to the express terms of the Empire Policy.

Standard of Review

The construction, interpretation, and application of an unambiguous insurance contract is a

question of law for the Court, which is reviewed de nova. Henderson v State Farm Fire & Casualty Co, 460

Mich 348; 596 NW2d 190 (1999).

Law Regarding Insurance Contract Interpretation

Insurance policies are subject to the same principles of construction as any other type of contract.

Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 461; 703 NW2d 23 (2005). The construction and interpretation of

4

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- - -------1 -, --T --------~-· -- - -------1

an insurance contract is a question of law for the Court. Henderson, supra. When interpreting an insurance

policy, the function of the court is to determine the intent of the parties and to enforce it accordingly.

Century Surety Co v Charron, 230 Mich App 79; 583 NW2d 486 (1998). An insurance contract should be

read and interpreted as a whole to harmonize and give effect to each of its provisions. Fragner v American

Comm Mut Ins Co, 199 Mich App 537,540; 502 NW2d 350 (1993); Auto Club Group Ins Co v Marzonie, 447

Mich 624; 527 NW2d 760 (1995). A court should not read ambiguities into a policy where none exist. Michigan

Millers Mut Ins Co v Bronson Plating Co, 445 Mich 558,567; 519 NW2d 864 (1994). Words and phrases that

appear in bold print or quotations are to be interpreted in accordance with the special definitions in the

policy. Allstate Ins Co v Freeman, 432 Mich 656, 443 NW2d 734 (1989). The fact that a policy does not

define a term does not render the policy ambiguous. Henderson, supra. Any terms used in an insurance

policy which are not clearly defined should be given their commonly used meaning. Group Ins Co v Czopek,

440 Mich 590, 596; 489 NW2d 444 (1992). "[Insurance contract] terms should not be considered in

isolation[,] and [insurance contracts] are to be interpreted to avoid absurd or unreasonable conditions and

results." Hastings Mut Ins Co v Safety King, Inc, 286 Mich App 287; 778 NW2d 275 (2009) citing Knox v

Knox, 337 Mich 109, 120; 59 NW2d 108 (1953), quoting 12 Am Jur, p 848; Port Huron Area School Dist v

Port Huron Ed Ass'n, 120 Mich App 112, 116; 327 NW2d 413 (1982). Where a provision in an insurance

policy is unambiguous, it should be enforced as written. Sherman-Nadiv v Farm-Bureau General Ins Co,

282 Mich App 75; 761 NW2d 872 (2008); City of Grosse Pointe Park v Michigan Municipal Liability and

Property Pool, 473 Mich 188; 702 NW2d 106 (2005); Auto-Owners Ins Co v Churchman, 440 Mich 560; 489

NW2d 431 (1992). Exclusions limiting the scope of coverage are to be read with the insuring agreement and

independent of other exclusions and should be strictly construed. State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Roe, 226

Mich App 258, 263; 573 NW2d 628, 631 (1997); McKusick v Travelers Indemnity Co, 246 Mich App 329,

333; 632 NW2d 525 (2001). Where there is a conflict between an endorsement and form provisions in an

insurance contract, the terms of the endorsement control. Smart v New Hampshire Ins Co, 148 Mich App

5

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

---- ----r -- ---------1

724; 304 NW2d 772 (1985); Besic v Citizens Ins Co of the Midwest, 290 Mich App 19, 26; 800 NW2d 93,

97 (2010), app den 489 Mich 895 (2011).

Discussion

Contrary to Garnishor Plaintiffs'/Cross-Appellants' erroneous arguments, the Writs of Garnishment

issued by GLC are not the relevant "Complaints" within the meaning of the judgment interest statute. Cross

Appellants rely primarily on either out dated and inapplicable Michigan case law3 or non-binding out-of

state case law to support their erroneous position and ignore binding Michigan precedent holding that a

garnishment proceeding is an ancillary proceeding and that only the complaint central to the overall action

is relevant for purposes of determining judgment interest.

MCL 600.6013 states in pertinent part:

(8) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (5) and (7) and subject to subsection (13), for complaints filed on or after January 1, 1987, interest on a money judgment recovered in a civil action is calculated at 6-month intervals from the date of filing the complaint at a rate of interest equal to 1 % plus the average interest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States treasury notes during the 6 months immediately preceding July 1 and January 1, as certified by the state treasurer, and compounded annually, according to this section. Interest under this subsection is calculated on the entire amount of the money judgment, including attorney fees and other costs .... (Emphasis added.)

The phrase "from the date of filing the complaint" within the meaning of MCL 600.6013 has been

interpreted to mean that "only that complaint central to the overall action is relevant for purposes of

determining Uudgment] interest." Grand Trunk Western R Co v Pre-Fab Transit Co, Inc, 46 Mich App 117,

127; 207 NW2d 469 (1973). A garnishment is a proceeding ancillary to the original suit, and therefore, it is

not a new or separate action. Schultz v AAA Michigan, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of

Appeals (Docket No. 201175, 5/28/99) (Ex. VY-attached) citing Ward v DA/IE, 115 Mich App 30, 35; 320

3 Hayes v Ross, 236 Mich 208 (1926) has no application in the interpretation of MCL 600.6013, which was first enacted in 1961, 35 years after Hayes was decided, or application of the express terms of the Empire insurance policy, which provide that Empire is not subject to liability for post-judgment interest in excess of policy limits in suits it does not defend.

6

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

T

NW2d 280 (1982). A tort judgment cannot be transformed into an action on a written instrument simply by

the filing of a writ of garnishment against an insurance company in the tort case. Schultz, supra.

In the instant case, the Complaints central to the overall action are the original Complaints filed by

Plaintiffs Hunt, Huber, and Luczak in their respective lawsuits. Those Complaint dates are: Plaintiff Hunt

(3/21/1996); Plaintiff Huber (4/11/1997); Plaintiffs Luczak (3/26/1996). See Registers of Action, Ex. L, M,

& N. Therefore, for purposes of analyzing the issue of judgment interest, the pre-judgment interest period

runs from the aforesaid 1996 and 1997 dates to March 14, 2000, the dates the Consent Judgments were

entered against the Drielicks, and the post-judgment interest period begins on March 14, 2000 and

continues to the present. See MCL 600.6013; Grand Trunk, supra.

At the November 30, 2015 trial court hearing, Garnishor Plaintiffs attempted to argue, without any

specific legal authority, that because the Writs of Garnishment started the post-judgment garnishment

proceedings, they constitute "Complaints" for purposes of MCL 600.6013. See 11-30-2015 Transcript, Ex.

PP. Garnishor Plaintiffs then attempted to argue, without any specific legal authority, that pre-judgment

interest should be calculated from the 12/4/2000 date of the Writs of Garnishment independent of the terms

of the Empire Non-Trucking Insurance Policy. There is no legal authority to support Garnishor

Plaintiffs'/Cross-Appellants' position. In fact, the March 14, 2000 Consent Judgments acknowledge that

judgment interest against the Drielicks accumulates from the date of filing the Complaint. See Ex. NN,

3/14/2000 Consent Judgments. This post-judgment garnishment proceeding is to determine what

obligation, if any, Empire has to provide coverage and payment for the Drielicks' liability under the March

2000 Consent Judgments. Therefore, the trial court properly ruled that the dates of the original 1996

and 1997 Complaints and the March 2000 Consent Judgments are the relevant dates for purposes

of analyzing pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Garnishor Plaintiffs'/Cross-Appellants' reliance on Whitney v Faulkner, 95 P3d 270 (Utah 2004), is

misplaced. Whitney addresses a specific Utah statute regarding agreements as to interest on contracts.

7

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- - - - ---r

Furthermore, to the extent the Whitney Court stated that a trial court has discretion to award so-called

prejudgment interest on a garnishment, such discretion pertained to situations where the garnishee had

been filing dilatory pleadings or causing unreasonable delay i.e. where a party had filed frivolous pleadings.

Id. There has been no such determination against Empire in the instant case. Empire has merely pursued

its defenses against the writs of garnishment as permitted by and in accordance with the law just as

Garnishor Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants have continued to pursue collection of the underlying March 14, 2000

Consent Judgments. There are specific Court rules and statutory provisions for seeking sanctions for

frivolous pleadings, and Garnishor Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants never filed any motions for sanctions or

obtained any ruling that Empire has filed any frivolous pleadings. It is disingenuous for Cross-Appellants to

suggest that the Court has discretion to assess "prejudgment interest" against Empire on the Writs of

Garnishment. There is no legal authority in Michigan for such a proposition. Likewise, Cross-Appellants'

reliance on Alton M Johnson Co v MAI Co, 463 NW2d 277 (Minn. 1990), is misplaced as that case

interprets a Minnesota statute. Moreover, Cross-Appellants ignore Michigan law holding that a

garnishment is an ancillary action and not a new, separate cause of action. See Grand Trunk, supra;

Ward, supra; Schultz, supra. Glen L. Olson, Inc v R L Thompson Enterprises, Inc, 88 Ore App 309; 7 45 P

2d 1227 (1987), reversed and remanded by 306 Ore 320; 759 P 2d 1087 (1988), also has no application to

the instant case as it involved a pre-judgment writ of garnishment referencing a claim against R L

Thompson Enterprises, Inc. The instant matter involves a post-judgment garnishment proceeding. The

Cross-Application for Leave to Appeal should be denied.

Moreover, while a prevailing party may be entitled to interest on a money judgment obtained

against a party defendant, MCL 600.6013 does not mandate that the defendant's liability insurer must pay

money judgment interest on a judgment entered against an insured in excess of the insurance policy limits

where the plain, unambiguous terms in the insurance policy state that it is not obligated to do so. The

insurer's obligation is determined from the plain, unambiguous language of the insurance policy because

8

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

T --- ------- - --------r

an insurer is permitted to contractually limit the risk it assumes, including the obligation to pay judgment

interest in excess of its limits, when it issues an insurance policy. See Cottrill v Michigan Hospital Service,

359 Mich 472; 102 NW2d 179 (1960); Westchester Fire Ins Co v Ring Bros Heating Co, 491 F 2d 711 (WD

Mich 1974); Cosby v Pool, 36 Mich App 571; 194 NW2d 142 (1971); Matich, supra at 23-28.

In Matich, supra, the Court discussed the issue of whether an insurer can be held liable for

payment of pre-judgment interest in excess of its policy limits. The Matich Court held that the "standard

interest clause" at issue clearly pertained only to post-judgment interest and not pre-judgment interest. Id.

The "standard interest clause" in Matich was different from the one in the instant case because it did not

preclude judgment interest in excess of policy limits where the insurer does not defend in the underlying

litigation whereas the Empire Policy does preclude payment of judgment interest where it does not defend

the insured in the underlying litigation.

The Court of Appeals properly held that the trial court erred in concluding that Empire is subject to

liability for payment of post-judgment interest in excess of the Empire policy limits in complete disregard of

the express terms of the Empire policy. Michigan Courts resolve disputes regarding an insurer's obligation

for payment of post-judgment interest based on the express contractual language of the insurance policy.

See Cottrill, supra; Matich, supra; Cosby, supra; Westchester Firs Ins, supra.

The Matich Court drew a definite distinction between pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. In

deciding the post-judgment interest issue, Matich looked at the specific language in the insurance policy's

interest clause, which provided that in addition to the policy limits, the insurer would pay:

"all interest on the entire amount of any judgment therein which accrues after entry of the judgment and before ... [the insurer] has tendered or deposited in court that part of the judgment which does not exceed the limit of [the insurer's] liability thereon." Matich, supra at 24.

The Matich Court acknowledged that an insurer may limit the risk that it assumes. Id. at 24-25. In

fact where exclusions are clear and specific, they must be given effect. Churchman, supra at 567. "It is

impossible to hold an insurance company liable for a risk it did not assume." Id. With respect to judgment

9

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

interest, the Matich Court stated in part:

[W]e proceed on the basis that the [underlying] consent judgment did not create "substantive rights and obligations" on the subject of judgment interest, and that the parties intended to leave their differences concerning judgment interest to be resolved through litigation "under the terms of [the insurer's] insurance polic[ies] or ... under the laws of the State of Michigan." Id. at 23-24.

In other words, with respect to post-judgment interest in excess of the policy limits, the Matich

Court held that the insurer's obligation is determined based on the law and the terms of the insurance

policy at issue. The policy in Matich did not limit the insurer's obligation to pay post-judgment

interest to suits its defends. Therefore, the Court held that the insurer was obligated to pay post

judgment interest in excess of the policy limits based on the express language of the policy.

In the instant case, however, the Empire interest clause provides that "In addition to the Limit of

Insurance, we will pay for the 'insured': ... (6) All interest on the full amount of any judgment that accrues

after entry of the judgment in any 'suit' we defend ... " (Emphasis added.) Exhibit 0. Therefore, Empire did

choose to limit its obligation for payment of post-judgment interest in excess of policy limits to suits it

defends. The language in the Empire policy is clear, unambiguous, and there is no law holding that it is

unenforceable. Neither Garnishor Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants nor the trial court cited any legal authority

holding that the judgment interest clause in the Empire Policy has been ruled unenforceable or void as

against public policy. Pursuant to Matich, supra, the plain, unambiguous, judgment interest provision

in the Empire policy must be enforced as written. The trial court erred in disregarding the express

language of the Empire policy and ruling that Empire is obligated to pay post-judgment interest in excess of

policy limits. The Court of Appeals held that all interest accruing after entry of the underlying March 14,

2000 Consent Judgments is post-judgment interest. See 12-14-2017 Court of Appeals Opinion, Ex. W.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals properly held that Empire is not subject to liability for post-judgment

interest in excess of policy limits based on the express language of the judgment interest clause in the

Empire Non-Trucking Policy. Id. Cross-Appellants' Cross-Application for Leave to Appeal should be denied.

10

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

------- ---------r

II. Cross-Appellants' Cross-Application For Leave To Appeal should be denied on the grounds that the Trial Court ruled that the only relevant Complaints for purposes of determining iudgment interest are the original 1996 and 1997 Complaints, and Garnishor Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants did not file any cross-appeal in the Court of Appeals challenging the Trial Court's decision such that the issue was not preserved for appeal and is not properly before this Court.

Standard of Review

Where a party does not advance or appeal an issue, that issue is deemed waived. Woodman v

Kera, 486 Mich 228, 234, n 6; 785 NW2d 1 (2010). See also Butcher v Department of Treasury, 425 Mich

262; 389 NW2d 412 ( 1986). Issues raised by a plaintiff-appellee in the trial court are not properly before the

Court of Appeals where the appellee has not filed a cross-appeal as to those issues. Michigan Harness

Horsemen's Assoc v Racing Comm'r, 123 Mich App 388, 393; 333 NW2d 292 (1983). See also Rohl v

Leone, 258 Mich App 72; 669 NW2d 579 (2003); and MGR 7.207.

Discussion

In the instant case, on January 27, 2016, the trial court ruled that the only Complaints relevant for

purposes of judgment interest are the original personal injury Complaints filed by the Plaintiffs in 1996 and

1997. Ex. QQ. The trial court's ruling was memorialized in the January 28, 2016 Order. Ex. TT. Empire did

not appeal this Order or the trial court's ruling that the original Complaints are the only relevant Complaints

for purposes of judgment interest, and Garnishor Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants did not file any cross appeal in

the Court of Appeals. Therefore, Cross-Appellants have no standing to argue that the writs of garnishment

are complaints for purposes of determining judgment interest. The trial court's ruling that the only relevant

complaints for purposes of judgment interest remains the law of the case. The Cross-Application for Leave

to Appeal should be denied.

Relief Requested

WHEREFORE, Garnishee Defendant Empire respectfully requests that this honorable Court deny

11

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

T ------r ----------~-

Cross-Appellants' Cross-Application for Leave to Appeal from the December 14, 2017 Court of Appeals

decision holding that Empire is not subject to liability for post-judgment interest after entry of the underlying

March 14, 2000 Consent Judgments against the Drielicks and the February 20, 2018 Court of Appeals

Order denying Cross-Appellants' motion for partial reconsideration.

Respectfully submitted,

GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C.

Isl Nicolette S. Zachary NICOLETTE S. ZACHARY (P49522) Co-Counsel for Garnishee Defendant-Appellant

Empire Fire & Marine Ins Co 1111 W. Long Lake Rd, Ste 300 Troy, Ml 48098-6333 248-641-7600

Dated: May 25, 2018

WARD ANDERSON PORRITT & BRYANT PLC

Isl David S. Anderson (with consent) DAVIDS. ANDERSON (P31213) Co-Counsel for Garnishee Defendant-Appellant

Empire Fire & Marine Ins Co 4190 Telegraph Road, Suite 2300 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 248-593-1440

12

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

l ,--------- - T

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE SUPREME COURT


Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs

ROGER DRIELICK, ET AL Defendants-Appellees

vs



BRANDON JAMES HUBE~ Plaintiff-Appellee,


Defendants-Appellees

vs



THOMAS LUCZAK and NOREEN LUCZAK, Plaintiff-Appellee,


Defendants-Appellees

vs



Supreme Court No. 157476 Court of Appeals No. 333630 Bay County Circuit Court No. 96-3280-NI

CONSOLIDATED

PROOF OF SERVICE

Supreme Court No. 157477 Court of Appeals No. 333631 Bay County Circuit Court No. 97-3238-NI

CONSOLIDATED

Supreme Court No. 157478 Court of Appeals No. 333632 Bay County Circuit Court No. 97-3238-N I

CONSOLIDATED

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing GARNISHEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL and this PROOF OF SERVICE were served on the following attorneys of record as indicated below.

Date of Service: May 25, 2018

Signature: /s/ Nicolette S. Zachary Nicolette S. Zachary

VIA U.S. Mail BRUCE F. TROGAN (P26612) Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee Hunt 7628 Gratiot Road Saginaw, Michigan 48609 989/781-2060 [email protected] VIA True Filing E-SERVICE JOSEPH S. HARRISON (P30709) Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee Huber P.O. Box 6916 Saginaw, Michigan 48608 989/799-7609 [email protected] VIA True Filing E-SERVICE (Andrew L. Finn) STEVEN M. HICKEY (P33142) ANDREW L. FINN (P43603) Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Sargent Trucking, Inc.

901 Wilshire Drive, Suite 550 Troy, Ml 48084 248/24 7-3300 [email protected] [email protected]

VIA U.S Mail PETER J. RIEBSCHLEGER (P30689) Attorney for Plaintiffs Luczak 4597 State Street Saginaw, Michigan 48603 989/790-2102

VIA True Filing E-SERVICE JOHN SHINNERS (P41337) Attorney for Defendants-Appellees Drielicks 60 Harrow Lane, Suite 4 Saginaw, Ml 48638 [email protected]

VIA True Filing E-SERVICE DAVID CARBAJAL (P41130) ROBERT ANDREW JORDAN (P73801) Attorney for Defendant-Appellee Great Lakes Carriers Corporation 300 St. Andrews Road, Ste. 302 Saginaw, Ml 48638-5977 989/790-0960 [email protected] d [email protected] VIA True Filing E-SERVICE DAVIDS. ANDERSON (P31213) WARD ANDERSON PORRITT & BRYANT PLC Co-Counsel for Garnishee Defendant-Appellant Empire Fire and Marine Ins Co

4190 Telegraph Road, Suite 2300 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 248/593-1440 [email protected]

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

~r - - - r ----~- -- r -------------- --::-- ---i ,------- -- --- --r -- -----------------, --------~- -----

EXHIBIT XX

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

.. ·.-:· ;-· ·1

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


Plaintiff,

vs

ROGER DRIELICK, ET AL Defendants

vs



BRANDON JAMES HUBER, Plaintiff


Defendants

VS



THOMAS LUCZAK and NOREEN LUCZAK, Plaintiff,

VS


vs



COA No. --------. Lower Court No. 96-3280-NI

(Bay County)

GARNISHEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY'S PROOF OF SERVICE

COA No._· ______ _ Lower Court No. 97-3238-NI (Bay County)

COA No. --------Lower Court No. 96-3328-NI (Bay County)

- ! ------

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

BRUCE F. TROGAN (P26612) Attorney for Plaintiff Hunt 7628 Gratiot Road Saginaw, Michigan 48609 989/781-2060 [email protected]

----~-r -

PETER J. RIEBSCHLEGER (P30689) Attorney for Plaintiffs Luczak 4597 State Street Saginaw, Michigan 48603 989/790-2102

JOSEPH S. HARRISON (P30709) Attorney for Plaintiff Huber P.O. Box 6916 Saginaw, Michigan 48608 989/799-7609 [email protected]

STEVEN M. HICKEY (P33142) ANDREW L. FINN (P43603) Attorneys for Defendant Sargent Trucking, Inc.

901 Wilshire Drive, Suite 550 Troy, Ml 48084 248/24 7-3300 [email protected]

.... ,. __ ··.·, .. _·-·-·'-'.·4 .... __ ·, ..

DAVIDS. ANDERSON (P31213) WARD ANDERSON PORRITI & BRYANT PLC Attorney for Garnishee Defendant-Appellant Empire Fire and Marine Ins Co


NICOLETTE S. ZACHARY (P49522) GARAN LUCOW MILLER PC

. Co-Counsel for Garnishee Def.-Appellant Empire Fire and Marine Ins Co

1111 W. Long Lake Rd, Ste 300 Troy, Ml 48098-6333 248/641-7600 [email protected]

DAVID CARBAJAL (P41130) ROBERT ANDREW JORDAN (P73801) Attorney for Defendant Great Lakes Carriers Corporation

300 St. Andrews Road, Ste. 302 Saginaw, Ml 48638-5977 989/790-0960 [email protected]

-1

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- -- . --.-. ·-·-r -.·_ .. -'.·· · · .-.- .---.---->-···T ~ .-_ --... -:.·.···.·- .--.--~-1

STATE OF MICHIGAN)

COUNTY OF OAKLAND)

PROOF OF SERVICE

)SS

----- ----- --------r ------~-·-

.. -'-'~ r

NICOLETTE S. ZACHARY deposes and states· that she is employed by

the law firm of GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C., and that on the 19th day of

October 2015, she served a copy of the following documents:

• JURISDICTIONAL CHECKLIST; • CLAIMS OF APPEAL; • COPY OF ORDERS BEING APPEALED; • COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF ORDERING 11/30/2015, 1/27/2015,

and 6/2/2016 TRANSCRIPTS DOCKET ENTRIES: CASE NOS. 96-3280-NI-C, 97-3238-NI-C, 96-3328-NI-C

• PROOF OF SERVICE

upon the following:

BRUCE F. TROGAN (P26612) 7628 Gratiot Road

Saginaw, Michigan 48609

PETER J. RIEBSCHLEGER (P30689) 4597 State Street


JOSEPHS. HARRISON (P30709) P.O. Box 6916


STEVEN M. HICKEY (P33142) ANDREW L. FINN (P43603) 901 Wilshire Drive, Suite 550

Troy, Ml 48084

DAVID CAR BAJ AL (P41130) ROBERT ANDREW JORDAN (P73801)

300 St. Andrews Road, Ste. 302 Saginaw, Ml 48638-5977

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

·.· .. -,---- _- - .~ -·- ·.-.-.•-,· .. -·.-_ .. l . - .: - -- .... ~ . - • . -~_, ·:_--:c,--·-""'!

DAVIDS. ANDERSON (P31213) WARD ANDERSON PORRITT & BRYANT PLC

4190 Telegraph Road, Suite 2300 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302

Clerk of the Court 18th Judicial Circuit Court 1230 Washington Avenue

Bay City, Ml 48708

._._ - - - - - · ---- _ . ..,_ .. ---,, ·i · - - · - -· -- , __ - . :_~_-;-'.'-~ ,_-, ,--- · 1

by placing same in well-sealed envelopes properly addressed thereto with

sufficient postage by First Class Mail and depositing said envelopes in U.S. Mail

receptacle in Troy, Michigan.

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 23rd day of June, 2016.

Mary Nicknwski, Notary Public Oakland County, Ml My commission expires: '1 //t>_,,,-/g #785406

NICOLETTE S. ZACHA()'

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

Trial Court/Tribunal Name: 18th Circuit Court (Bay County)

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan

Jurisdictional Checklist

CASE NO. Trial Court/Tribunal:

96-3280-NI Court of Appeals:

Case Name: _M_a_r_ie_H_un_t __________ v Roger Drielick d/b/a Roger Drielick Trucking

INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete this checklist and file with your claim of appeal. ALL of the numbered items are required. Check each box as you confirm that each item is being filed.

~ 1. A signed claim of appeal showing the correct lower court number(s). [MCR 7,204(8)(1) & (0).)

~ 2. A filing fee of $375.00 or appropriate fee substitute. [MCR 7.202(3) & 7.204(8)(2)-l(Where multiple lower court or tribunal numbers are involved, an additional filing fee may be required. Appellants will be advised of any additional amount required.)

~ 3. A copy of the order you are appealing. [MCR 7 .204(C)(1 ).] (This is the order deciding the merits and not an order denying reconsideration, new trial, or other post-judgment relief.)

~ 4. Evidence that the necessary transcript has been ordered. [MCR 7.204(C)(2).] (Only one item from a through g is required).

D a. No transcript will be filed. [MCR 7.204(C)(2) & AO 2004-5 ,I 8(A)(1 ).]

D b. The transcript has already been filed. [MCR 7.210(8)(1)(a).]

~ C. The complete transcript has been ordered. [MCR 7.210(8)(1 ){a).]

D d. This appeal is from a probate court proceeding which does not require a complete transcript. [MCR 7.210(8)(1)(b).]

D e. A motion has been filed in the lower court or tribunal for submission of the appeal on less than the complete transcript. [MCR 7 .210(8)(1 )( c).]

D f. The parties have stipulated to submission of the appeal on less than the complete transcript. [MCR 7.210(8)(1)(d).)

D g. The parties have stipulated to a statement of facts. [MCR 7.210{8)(1)(e).]

~-5. Proof of serviee demonstrating that all other parties have been served. [MCR 7.204(C)(3).] (Even if a party is not an appe/lee, they must be served.)

~ 6. A current register of actions from the lower court or tribunal. [MCR 7.204(C){5).]

Finality of Order Being Appealed (Check the box that demonstrates your claim of appeal is by right. If neither applies, you do not have an appeal by right.)

~ The claim of appeal is from an order defined as a final order by MCR 7.202(6) or MCR 5.801 (8)(1 ). [MCR 7.203(A){1 ).] Please specify which category of final order applies: _M_C_R_7_.2_0_2~(6~) _______ _

D The claim of appeal is from an order which is designated by statute, court rule, or case law as an order appealable by right to the Court of Appeals. Please specify the authority under which you have an appeal

by right:---------------------------------

6/23/16 Date

6/07

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--- -- ----r

:·_-: r

Trial Court/Tribunal Name: 18th Circuit Court (Bay County)

.. -. ,--"----- --,-,_- ,--1



CASE NO. Trial Court/Tribunal:

97-3238-NI Court of Appeals:

. ------ - .. ---------,-,--1

Case Name: Brandon Huber v Roger Drielick d/b/a Roger Drielick Trucking

INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete this checklist and file with your claim of appeal. All of the numbered items are required. Check each box as you confirm that each item is being filed.

0 1. A signed claim of appeal showing the correct lower court number(s). [MGR 7.204(8)(1) & (D).]

0 2. A filing fee of $375.00 or appropriate fee substitute. [MGR 7.202(3) & 7.204(8)(2).] (Where multiple lower court or tribunal numbers are involved, an additional filing fee may be required. Appellants will be advised of any additional amount required.)

0 3. A copy of the order you are appealing. [MGR 7.204(C)(1 ).] (This is the order deciding the merits and not an order denying reconsideration, new trial, or other post-judgment relief.)

0 4. Evidence that the necessary transcript has been ordered. [MGR 7.204(C)(2).] (Only one item from a through g is required).

D a. No transcript will be filed. [MCR 7.204(C)(2) & AO 2004-5 ,I 8{A)(1).]

D b. The transcript has already been filed. [MCR 7.210(B)(1)(a).]

~ C. The complete transcript has been ordered. [MCR 7.210(8)(1 )(a).]

D d. This appeal is from a probate court proceeding which does not require a complete transcript. [MCR 7.210(8)(1)(b).]

D e. A motion has been filed in the lower court or tribunal for submission of the appeal on less than the complete transcript. [MGR 7.210(8)(1)(c).]

D f. The parties have stipulated to submission of the appeal on less than the complete transcript. [MCR 7.210(8)(1)(d).]

D g. The parties have stipulated to a statement of facts. [MGR 7.210(8)(1 )(e).]

0 5. Proof of service demonstrating that all other parties have been served. [MCR 7.204(C)(3).] (Even if a party is not an appellee, they must be served.) ·

0 6. A current register of actions from the lower court or tribunal. [MCR 7.204(C)(5).]


~ The claim of appeal is from an order defined as a final order by MGR 7.202(6) or MGR 5.801(8)(1). [MCR 7.203(A)( 1 ).] Please specify which category of final order applies: "'"'M~C=R:...:-..:..7-=-=.2=0=2"'-'(6::c.<) _______ _


by right:--------------------------------~

6/23/16 Date

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

----r ----------

Trial Court/Tribunal Name: 18th Circuit Court



CASE NO.

Trial Court/Tribunal: 96-3328-NI

Court of Appeals: (Bay County)

Case Name: Thomas Luczak, et al v Roger Drielick d/b/a Roger Drielick Trucking

INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete this checklist and file with your claim of appeal. ALL of the numbered items are required. Check each box as you confirm that each item is being filed.

~ 1. A signed claim of appeal showing the correct lower court number(s). [MGR 7.204(8)(1) & (D).]

~ 2. A filing fee of $375.00 or appropriate fee substitute. [MGR 7.202(3) & 7.204(8)(2).) (Where multiple lower court or tribunal numbers are involved, an additional filing fee may be required. Appellants will be advised of any additional amount required.)

~ 3. A copy of the order you are appealing. [MGR 7.204(C)(1).] (This is the order deciding the merits and not an order denying reconsideration, new trial, or other post-judgment relief.)

~ 4. Evidence that the necessary transcript has been ordered. [MGR 7.204(C)(2).] (Only one item from a through g is required). ·

D a. No transcript will be filed. [MGR 7 .204(C)(2) & AO 2004-51f 8(A)(1 ).]

D b. The transcript has already been filed. [MCR 7.210(8)(1)(a).]

~ C. The complete transcript has been ordered. [MGR 7.210(8)(1 )(a).]

D d. This appeal is from a probate court proceeding which does not require a complete transcript. [MGR 7.210(8)(1)(b).]

D e. A motion has been filed in the lower court or tribunal for submission of the appeal on less than the complete transcript. [MCR 7.210(8)(1)(c).]

D f. The parties have stipulated to submission of the appeal on less than the complete transcript. [MGR 7.210(8)(1 )(d).]

D g. The parties have stipulated to a statement of facts. [MGR 7.210(8)(1 )(e).]

~ 5. Proof of service demonstrating that all other parties have been served. [MGR 7 .204(C)(3).] (Even if a party is not an appe/lee, they must be served.)

~ 6. A current register of actions from the lower court or tribunal. [MGR 7.204(C)(5).]


~ The claim of appeal is from an order defined as a final order by MGR 7.202(6) or MCR 5.801 (8)(1). [MCR 7.203(A)(1 ).] Please specify which category of final order applies: _M_C_R_7_.2_0_2~<6~)~-------


by right:---------------------------------

6/23/16 Date

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

,-,_--__ ,------~ -- -.- . ,-- ·1

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


Plaintiff,

vs


vs



BRANDON JAMES HUBER, Plaintiff


Defendants

vs



THOMAS LUCZAK and NOREEN LUCZAK, Plainti.ff,

VS


vs



COA No. --------Lower Court No. 96-3280-NI (Bay County)

GARNISHEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY'S CLAIM OF APPEAL

COA No. _______ _ Lower Court No. 97-3238-NI (Bay County)

COA No. --------Lower Court No. 96-3328-Nl (Bay County)

------r

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

---- -- -----------r

BRUCE F. TROGAN (P26612) Attorney for Plaintiff Hunt 7628 Gratiot Road Saginaw, Michigan 48609 989/781-2060 [email protected]

-·r ,-------------

PETER J. RIEBSCHLEGER (P30689) Attorney for Plaintiffs Luczak 4597 State Street Saginaw, Michigan 48603 989/790-2102

JOSEPH S. HARRISON (P30709) Attorney for Plaintiff Huber P.O. Box 6916 Saginaw, Michigan 48608 989/799-7609 [email protected]

STEVEN M. HICKEY (P33142) ANDREW L. FINN (P43603) Attorneys for Defendant Sargent Trucking, Inc.

901 Wilshire Drive, Suite 550 Troy, Ml 48084 248/24 7-3300 [email protected]

--------- -------r

,---·-r , -- ---,.-_-_ --- - ------~,-",T

DAVIDS. ANDERSON (P31213) WARD ANDERSON PORRITI & BRYANT PLC Attorney for Garnishee Defendant Empire Fire and Marine Ins Co


NICOLETTE S. ZACHARY (P49522) GARAN LUCOW MILLER PC Co-Counsel for Garnishee Defendant Empire Fire and Marine Ins Co

1111 W. Long Lake Rd, Ste 300 Troy, Ml 48098-6333 248/641-7600 [email protected]

DAVID CARBAJAL (P41130) ROBERT ANDREW JORDAN (P73801) Attorney for Defendant Great Lakes Carriers Corporation 300 St. Andrews Road, Ste. 302 Saginaw, Ml 48638-5977 989/790-0960 [email protected]

I I.

I I

·::: ·-

!. __ 1·

i 1-:-;

I !·.' i -

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

.·· .. -. ·-:_--- ~-·-·"}" . ' , ... ---- -- --·-- .. --,-------1

CLAIM OF APPEAL

NOW COMES Garnishee Defendant-Appellant EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE

INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through its attorneys, GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C.,

and claims an Appeal in this post-judgment garnishment proceeding from:

@ The 9/28/2015 Opinion and Order on remand from the Michigan Supreme

Court. See Attached Order, Exhibit 1.

• The 6/2/2016 Orders of Final Judgment in favor of Garnishor Plaintiffs in

Case Nos. 96-3280-NI, Case No. 97-3238-NI, and Case No. 96-3328-NI.

Exhibit 2.

Attached as Exhibit 3 are the Registers of Action for trial court Case Nos. 96-

3280-N I, Case No. 97-3238-NI, and Case No. 96-3328-NI.

Attached as Exhibit 4 is the certificate of ordering the transcripts from the

following hearings:

• 11/30/2015 - Partial hearing on Motion for Entry of Judgment and Motion to

Re-post Empire Insurance Policy In Lieu of Appeal Bond

• 1/27/2016 - Continued hearing on Motion for Entry of Judgment and Motion

to Re-post Empire Insurance Policy In Lieu of Appeal Bond

111 6/2/2016 - Continued hearing on Motion for Entry of Judgment and Motion to

Re-post Empire Insurance Policy In Lieu of Appeal Bond

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

I '

Dated: June 23, 2016

AND

- :· -"'=I

'

I -~----- --- -

WARD ANDERSON PORRITI & BRYANT PLC

(l)zmds:.f/rvlaJJJP1 w/rgMfd DAVIDS. ANDERSON (P31213) . 1

WARD ANDERSON PORRITI & BRYANT PLC Co-Counsel for Garnishee-Defendant/Appellant

Empire Fire and Marine Ins Co 4190 Telegraph Road, Suite 2300 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 248/593-1440

2

-., r

I

I: i I .

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

... - .. _ -- --·-·----···1 - _-_-; i

EXHIBIT 1

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--1 --------

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 181

h JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF BAY

HUNT, HUBER, LUCZAK

Plaintiff, V

ROGER DRlELICK ET AL,

Defendants, V

EMPIRE FIRE AND MARlNE INSURANCE COMP ANY

Garnishee Defendant.

------~---------~-/

OPINION

Case No. 96-3280-NI 96-3328-NI 97-3238-NI

HON. HARRY P. GILL (P26321)

This case has been remanded to this court for further fact-finding to determine whether Drielick Trucking and Great Lakes Carriers Corporation (GLC) entered into a leasing agreement for the use of Drielick Trucking's semi-tractors as contemplated m1der an. insurance policy's exclusion clause. For the reasons explained in this opinion, this Court holds that there was no lease entered into by these parties nor was an implied trip lease in effect at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the insurance policy exclusion clause does not apply.

Statements of Facts

Drielick, a commercial trucking company owned by Roger Drie1ick, conducted business with Sargent Trucking for most of 1995. Sometime around October 1995, Drielick terminated its contract with Sargent Trucking and began conducting business with Great Lake Carriers Corporation ("GLC"), owned and operated by Bill and Jamie Bateson.

On January 12, 1996, Bill Bateson dispatched Corey Drielick, a Drielick Trucking truck driver, to come to GLC's shipping yard in order to pick up a trailer for delivery. En route to GLC's yard, Corey was involved in a multi-vehicle automobile accident. Plaintiff Eugene Hunt died in the accident and Plaintiffs Noreen Luczak and Brandon Huber were seriously injured.

1

I-·

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

,---~ r

Hunt's estate, Luczak, and Hunt filed suits against Corey and Roger Drielick, Drielick Trucking, Sargent, and GLC. At the time of the accident, Empire insured Drielick Trucking's semi-tractors under a bobtail policy. Empire denied coverage for the accident because of the business use and named driver exclusions. Plaintiffs have already settled with Sargent and GLC and entered into a consent judgment with the Drielicks and Drielicks Trncldng. Roger Drielick assigned his rights under his insurance policy with Empire to plaintiffs Sargent and GLC. Sargent and GLC agreed to help Plaintiffs with collection efforts against Empire in exchange for a portion of any proceeds received from Empire.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that the first business use exclusion clause did not bar coverage, because the clause is properly construed as excluding coverage with respect to a semitractor only when the accident occurs during the time that property is attached to the semi-tractor that is used in any business, and there was nothing attached to the semi-tractor at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court directed this court, to consider the parties' agreement to determine whether there was, in fact, a leasing agreement between Drielick Trucldng and GLC as contemplated by the business-use exclusion's leasing clause. If so, the precise tenns of that agreement must be determined, and this court must reconsider whether Corey was acting in furtherance of a particular term of the leasing agreement at the time of the accident.

Discussion

There is no dispute that Drielick and GLC did not have a writlc11 lease agreement as required by the Code of Federal Regulations. 1 The regulations require an ngreemcnt including the parties' names, lease duration, exclusive possession and responsibilities, specific compensation, items included, payment period, freight bill or other freight documentation, charge-back items, equipment or services from an authorized carrier, insurance, and escrow funds.2 However, Empire claimed that there was either an oral or implied lease in effect at the time of the ac.cident that transferred the use, possession and control from Drielick to GLC as of the time of the accident and therefore, the leasing exclusion in the insurance policy precludes coverage.

Empire further reasoned that although Drielick did not have a written lease agreement with GLC, there was an implied lease agreement based on the terms set forth in Drielick's prior lease agreement with Sargent Trucking and the course of dealing between these parties. Specifically, Empire maintained that the lease agreement with Sargent Trucking was exchanged with the intention of serving as a basis of a lease agreement to be executed between GLC and Drielick Trucking. Empire also argued that the parties in fact operated under these same terms, albeit there was no reduction to writing. Beyond the physical exchange of this lease, the Court does not find other evidence to suggest that when the Sargent lease was exchanged, it contained the terms agreed upon by the parties in the instant case nor was there any agreement the lease with Sargent defined the terms to which these parties agreed.

1 49 CFR 376.11; 49 CFR 376.12. 2 49 U.S.C. § 11107 (fonnerly 49 U.S.C. § 304(e)); 49 CFR § 1057.

2

.-~~ r I

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--- -----------r -----r

... ·. -· ···-·-··c··.•r

Empire contended that the mere existence of the business relationship between GLC and Drielick Trncking suggests at least some lease agreement must have been in existence at the time of the accident. However, the mere existence of these two parties conducting business does not rise to the level of a lease agreement, nor does it in any way define the terms of such an agreement, if any.

Empire then argued that the course of dealing between these parties establishes that Drielick and GLC agreed to a long tem1 lease of Drielick's equipment by GLC, within the meaning of 49 CFR 376.11; 49 CFR 376.12. For this court to find the existence of such a lease the evidence would have to establish that the parties had agreed that GLC was to have exclusive use, control and possession of Drielick's equipment for the lease's duration, and that the lease was in effect at the time of the accident. In support of its contention, Empire cites the fact that GLC's name and pennit was on the doors ofDrielick"s tractors and that Drielick had been provided various documents to be used by Drielick d1ivers during deliveries. Empire argued that the fact that Drielick made several deliveries for GLC underscores the intent of the parties that there was a long tenn lease. Empire also argued that a transfer of possession and control of the equipment should be found to have occurred at the time Bill Bateson ''dispatched" Corey Drielick to the yard to pick up a load and deliver it for GLC.

However, none of these factors distinguishes between whether the parties intended a long term lease or simply a series of trip leases, or that they intended any agreement at all. In fact there is a least some evidence that Corey Drieliclc 011 at least one occasion had used the tractor for other business, either personal or commercial. As to Empire's claim that transfer of possession, use and control should be inferred at the time Bateson "dispatched" Corey Drielick to the yard, there is absolutely no evidence that Corey Drielick was required by any agreement to respond to Bateson's dispatch immediately or that he was required to drive straight to the yard, or that he was not free to use the equipment for other purposes before reporting to the GLC yard. More importantly the burden of proof is upon Empire to establish that the parties did in fact have a relationship, where use, control and possession had been transferred to GLC for a peiiod of time, including the time of the accident, other than for the specific occasions of when an actual trip (trailer attached) was occurring. This Court finds that the burden of pi·oof has not been satisfied to show that these parties entered into any lease, nor has Empire met the burden of proof as to any particular terms of such a lease.

Even in the absence of an executed written or oral lease, a lease can be impbed when a lease is required by law.3 Federal regulations provide that a lease must be made between an authorized carrier and an owner of equipment. 4 The required terms of such a lease, in pertinent part, include: the names of the parties; duration of the lease; exclusive possession, control and use of the equipment by the authorized carrier for the duration of the lease; compensation; and a list of items being leased. Although there are additional terms required by the regulations, nothing in the regulation requires a lease of any kind prior to the transfer of use, possession and control of the equipment from the owner of the equipment to the authorized carrier, namely prior to the time that the tractor is attached to the trailer. In this case, Empire has failed to meet its burden to establish that such a transfer ever occurred prior to the accident. Accordingly, the law

3 Wilson v Riley ·whittle, Inc, 145 Ariz 317,321; 701 P2d 575 (Ariz App, 1984). 4 49 CFR376.ll; 49 CFR376.12.

3

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

I ·-------- ---------, - -----~-- --

- -.- .-·,--.----- .. ,,-'"T -~- ---~"· -··-~:,cc· ·1 . -'=. --,- __ .-

will not impose a lease in this case because nothing in the regulations required such a lease at the time of the accident.

Conclusion

AB set forth above, the Court finds that there was no lease agreement as contemplated by the leasing clause exclusion set forth in the insurance policy. Further, the Court finds Corey Drielick was not acting in furtherance of a particular term of any leasing agreement at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the Court holds that the leasing clause exclusion does not preclude coverage lmder the insurance policy between Drielick and Empire.

Date: September 28, 2015

Sent on September 29, 2015

cc: Mr. Brnce F. Trogan Mr. Peter J. Riebschleger Mr. David Anderson Mr. John J. Shinners Mr. Joseph S. Harrison Mr. Andrew Finn Mr. David Carbajal

THIS JUDGMENT/ORDER RESOLVES THE LAST PENDING CLAIM AND CLOSES THE CASE.

4

H,(JN. HARRY P. GILL (P26321) Circuit Court Judge

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-,-___ '·T

EXHIBIT 2

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

- ----r ---------~-

STATE OF Jv.!ICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF BAY

MARJE HUNT, Personal Representative of the Estate ofEUGENE WAYNE HUNT, Deceased,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 96-3280-NI-C

HON. HARRY GILL Plaintiff,

vs

DRJELICK, ET AL-Defendants

vs

EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMP ANY,

Garnishee Defendant

ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT

AT A SESSION OF SAID COURT HELD 1N" THE CITY OF BAY CITY, COUNTY OF BAY, STATE OF

:MICHIGAN, ON JUNE 2, 2016

PRESENT: HON. HARRY GILL, Circuit Judge

------i ----~-~-~-

IT IS FORT.BER ORDERED that Final Judgment is entered in favor of the Garnishment . Plaintiffs and against Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company in the amount of $1,342,722.78, inclusive of statutory judgment interest from the date of filing of the Complaint through June 2, 2016, with interest accruing at the judgment rate pursuant to MCL 600,6013(8). ·

SO ORDERED:

:Hf\RRY GIL~-- {2/J' '2,fc) Z,( C: t 11 C..u 1-r ) U .[) CJ"(?,

*This Order disposes of the last remaining claims in this case.

I \.

I. ( r~

[ :, '

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

---- - f

-- _-_c•.c_o_c:-:--;·.-1 -- r

STATE OF·MICHIGAN

JN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF BAY

THOMAS LUCZAK and NOREEN LUCZAK, . ) )

Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 96-3328-NI-C )

vs ) )

DRIBLICK, ET AL-Defendants ) )

vs )

EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, )

) Garnishee Defendant )


AT A SESSION OF SAID COURT HELD IN THE CITY OF BAY CITY, COUNTYOFBAY, STATE OF

MICHIGAN, ON JUNE 2, 2016


IT IS FURTIIER ORDERED that Final Judgment is entered in favor of the Garnishment Plaintiffs and against Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company in the. amount of $439,831.90, inclusive of statutory judgment interest from the date of filing of the Complaint through June 2, 2016, with interest accruing at the judgment rate pursuant to MCL 600.6013(8).

SO ORDERED:

HARirY: ~L • /'fr' JC:, } Z--( c:_i!Lc_. I) H St/,_'>t,c .

*This Order disposes oft~e last remaining claims in this case ..

~! t

,. ·-·~ -., ,-~

-·:f

.. .....

I i

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

. , __ --J

-- ----r

-1 ' . - .. - -·r ._. '-····--.--.- ----C:---;,,-_,...l . . . . ---·,··'

ST,'.\ TE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF BAY

BRANDON JAMES HUBER,

Plaintiff,

vs

DRIELICK, ET AL-Defendari.ts

'vs

EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COJY.II> ANY,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 97-3238-NI-C HON. HARRY GILL

Garnishee Defendant )

~----~


AT A SESSION OF SAID COURT HELD IN THE CITY OF BAY CITY, COUNTI OF BAY, STATE OF

MICHIGAN, ON JUNE 2, 2016


IT IS ORDERED that Final Judgment is entered in favor of the Garnishment Plaintiffs and against Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company in the amount of $113,912.97, inclusive of statutory judgment interest from the date of filing·ofthe Complaint through June 2, 2016, with interest accruing at the judgment rate pursuant to MCL 600.6013(8).

SOORDERED: /1

~ HARRY GILL . /)if- 2-t;,-; L-/ C,fi\"t-u;( ')c/Jlt, e. {/

*This Order disposes of the last remaining claims in this case.

-----------T

--·r

L

1·

1·

I ,-. ! ,.

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

EX IBIT 3

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

I ---- --~--, -- --~-~~--

---er - - _____ .. _._._-· .. ----.--- ---=1 --~-----=.cc-

CLOSED CJO CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 PAGE 1 96-003280-NI JUDGE GILL

BAY COUNTY

P 001 HUNT,MARIE,

ATY:TROGAN,BRUCE F. P-26612 989-781-2060

SERVICE/ANS 01/28/13 APP

FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09 JDF SCAO:SEC CLINE 03

VS D 001 DRIELICK,ROGER, DBA-ROGER DRIELICK TRUCKING,,

14207 SHERIDAN ROAD MONTROSE MI 48457 ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J P-41337 989-249-4900 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET MAJ SERVICE/ANS 06/14/96 ANS

D 002 DRIELICK,COREY, 14207 SHERIDAN ROAD MONTROSE MI 48457 ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN_ J P-41337 989-249-4900 DISPOSITION 08/14)09 SET MAJ SERVICE/ANS 06/14/96 ANS

D 003 GREAT LAKES CARRIERS CORP.,, RES-BATESON,JAMIE,J.

440 N. HURON ROAD LINWOOD MI 48634 ATY:CARBAJAL,DAVID, 04/01/97 P-41130 989-790-0960 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET MAJ SERVICE/ANS 05/19/97 ANS

D 004 GREAT LAKES LOGISTICS&_ SERV,, RES-BATESON,JAMIE,J.

440 N. HURON ROAD LINWOOD MI 48634 ATY:PURCELL,MILES J 10/16/97 P-19136 989-225-2435 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET MAJ SERVICE/ANS 01/08/98 ANS

D 005 MERMAID TRANSPORTATION RES-BEACH,KEVIN,A.

INC.,,

13702 DIXIE HIGHWAY BIRCH RUN MI 48415

DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05

03/19/98 SET MAJ ROS

D 006 SARGENT TRUCKING INC.,, RES- SARGENT, FRANCES, ANNA-,

5606 N. WESTERVELT RD. SAGINAW MI 48604 ATY:CHEATHAM,CHARLE 03/19/98 P-11815 248-247-3300 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET MAJ SERVICE/ANS 06/17/98 ANS

CPOOl LUCZAK,NOREEN, VS CDOOl DRIELICK,COREY, ATY:RIEBSCHLEGER,PE 08/16/96 ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J 08/16/96 P-30689 989-790-2102 P-41337 989-249-4900

DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET MAJ

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

~! , - . . - ... .· · .. r ·- -'·T

CLOSED CJO CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 PAGE 2 96-003280-NI JUDGE GILL FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS

CP002 LUCZAK,THOMAS~ VS CD002 DRIELICK,ROGER, DEA-ROGER DRIELICK TRUCKING,,

ATY:RIEBSCHLEGER,PE 08/16/96 ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J 08/16/96 P-30689 989-790-2102 P-41337 989-249-4900

DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET MAJ SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS

XPOOl DRIELICK,ROGER, VS XDOOl HUNT,MARIE, EST-HUNT,EUGENE,WAYNE

ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J 04/25/97 ATY:TROGAN,BRUCE F. 04/25/97 P-41337 989-249-4900 P-26612 989-781-2060

DISPOSITION 08/14/09. SET MAJ SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS

XP002 DRIELICK,COREY, VS XD002 GREAT LAKES CARRIERS CORP.,, ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J 04/25/97 P-41337 989-249-4900

SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS

ATY:CARBAJAL,DAVID, 04/25/97 P-41130 989-790-0960 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET MAJ SERVICE/ANS 07/15/97 ANS

XP003 SARGENT TRUCKING INC.,, VS XD003 GREAT LAKES CARRIERS,, ATY:CHEATHAM,CHARLE 02/10/00 P-11815 248-247-3300


ATY:CARBAJAL,DAVID, 02/10/00 P-41130 989-790-0960 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET MAJ SERVICE/ANS 02/18/00 ANS

XD004 DRIELICK,ROGER, DBA-DRIELICK TRUCKING,,


XD005 DRIELICK,COREY, DBA-DRIELICK TRUCKING,,




TPOOl DRIELICK,ROGER, VS TDOOl LUCZAK,NOREEN,

ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J 06/14/96 P-41337 989-249-4900


TP002 DRIELICK,COREY, ATY: SHINNERS, JOHN J 06/14/96 P-41337 989-249-4900 SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS

IPOOl CHEATHAM,CHARLES,C. 5777 W. MAPLE, STE 130 W. BLOOMFIELD MI 48325-5002 ATY:CHEATHAM,CHARLE 10/02/98

c/o 4371 STATE STREET SAGINAW MI 48603 ATY:SHEPPARD,RICHAR · 06/14/96 P-30272 989-892-2595 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET MAJ SERVICE/ANS 07/17/96 ANS

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- --- --~-r - ------j

. -- .. --_.-_-. --- ----· ·-- --·----1 '7"1 • -:-c:,-_---,---__ - ..

' __ ,_,

' - .-. --- - --- ,-·.-- -----r

CLOSED CJO CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 PAGE 3 96-003280-NI JUDGE GILL FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

P-11815 248-247-3300 SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS

IP002 CARBAJAL,DAVID, P. 0. BOX 1966 SAGINAW MI 48605-1966 ATY:CARBAJAL,DAVID, 04/29/10 P-41130 989-790-0960

IP003 EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INS,, ATY:ZACHARY,NICOLET 06/22/15 P-49522 248-641-7600 SERVICE/ANS 06/22/15 APP

Actions, Judgments, Case Notes

Num Date Judge Chg/Pty Event Description/Comments

1 03/21/96 CAPRATHE 2

3 04/23/96

4 05/13/96

5 05/16/96

6 05/20/96

7

8 05/24/96 9 06/14/96

10 11 12 13 07/17/96

14

16 07/19/96

17

15 07/22/96 18 07/23/96

19 20 08/16/96

21

D 002

D 001

D 001

D 002

D 001 D 002

TDOOl

TDOOl

TDOOl

CPOOl

CP002

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT JURY DEMAND FILED RECEIPT# 00040029 AMT $140.00 RETURN OF SERVICE *(4/16/96)* RETURN OF SERVICE *(4/20/96)* DEFAULT AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT PROOF OF SERVICE APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-46217 FREEL APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-46217 FREEL ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT ANSWER FILED ANSWER FILED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED 3RD PARTY SUMMONS & COMPLAINT APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-30272 SHEPPARD ANSWER FILED RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE RETURN OF SERVICE -(7/02/96) 3RD PARTY PL. ANSWER TO -AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PROOF OF SERVICE FILED NOTICE SENT FOR: 08/26/96 9:00 AM

PRE-TRIAL HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

PROOF OF SERVICE FILED APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-30689 RIEBSCHLEGER THIRD PARTY COUNTER-COMPLAINT APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-30689 RIEBSCHLEGER

CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK CMG CLK CLK CMG CLK CLK CMG CLK CLK CLK CMG CLK CLK CMG CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK LML

CLK LML CLK CMG CLK CLK CLK CMG CLK

I I'

I·

I '1

I

I' i

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

CLOSED CJO 96-003280-NI JUDGE GILL

22 08/26/96 23 09/03/96 24 09/18/96

25 09/25/96

26

27 10/10/96 28 10/11/96 29 30 31 32 33 34 10/16/96

35 36

38 11/18/96 37 11/21/96 40 12/23/96

41 01/15/97

42 01/23/97

43 02/11/97

- 44

------r

-----------1 -1 ,-------- ---

CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 PAGE 4

D 001 D 002 CDOOl CD002 TP002 TPOOl

TDOOl

FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

PRE-TRIAL HEARING PRETRIAL ORDER REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF -DOCUMENTS ORDER OF JOINDER

*SEE: 96-3328-NI-C SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/18/96 5:00 PM

TENATIVE PRETRIAL HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

ORDER OF SUBSTITUTION RE-ASSIGNED FREEL TO SHINNER RE-ASSIGNED FREEL TO SHINNER RE-ASSIGNED FREEL TO SHINNER RE-ASSIGNED FREEL TO SHINNER RE-ASSIGNED FREEL TO SHINNER RE-ASSIGNED FREEL TO SHINNER NOTICE SENT FOR: 11/18/96 10:00 AM


PROOF OF SERVICE FILED REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 11/18/96 5:00 PM


PRE-TRIAL HEARING PRETRIAL ORDER MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00051847 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 01/27/97 1:30 PM

MOTION HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND -PRODUCTION BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/10/97 1:30 PM


-(MOTION FOR DISCOVERY) RE-NOTICE OF HEARING MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00052868 AMT $20.00

-SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/18/97 1:30 PM MOTION HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

AMENDED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY & -PRODUCTION RE-NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/07/97 11:00 AM


-(AMENDED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY -& PRODUCTION) RE-NOTICE OF HEARING STIPULATION & ORDER: DISMISS -THIRD PARTY ACTION

CRT LML CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK LML

CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK LML

CLK LML CLK LML

CRT BKW CLK PSN CLK TEH

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--r ----~-~---

... ·or ,---


45

46 02/14/97 39 02/20/97

47 49 03/24/97

48 04/01/97

50 51 04/03/97

52 04/07/97

53 04/08/97

55 04/09/97 56 54 04/10/97 57 04/22/97

58 59 04/23/97

60 04/25/97

61 04/28/97

62 05/19/97

64 05/27/97 63 06/05/97

65 06/11/97 67 07/15/97

68 07/21/97

69 07/31/97

66 08/05/97

_c..~-r ·_' _ .. - - .-- :-. - . -- - - ~,: ,-

CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16

TDOOl

CDOOl CD002 D 003

D 003

D 003

XDOOl

XD002

FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE

MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE DISMISSED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED NOTICE SENT FOR: 03/24/97 11:30 AM


PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MISCELLANOUS HEARING -DATE SET FOR PRETRIAL HEARING -ADJOURNED ON REQUEST OF ALL -PARTIES. PL. TO ADD -APPROPRIATE PARTY. PRETRIAL -HEARING TO BE RESET AFTER 30 -DAYS. FIRST AMENDED SUMMONS & -COMPLAINT CASE ACTIVITY REPORT RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR -DISCOVERY & PRODUCTION SET NEXT DATE FOR: 05/27/97 5:00 PM


AMENDED RESPONSE TO MOTION -FOR DISCOVERY & PRODUCTION RETURN OF SERVICE RETURN OF SERVICE RETURN OF SERVICE NOTICE SENT FOR: 05/27/97 10:30 AM


PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ANSWER TO 1ST AMENDED -COMPLAINT CROSS COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-41130 CARBAJAL PROOF OF SERVICE ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-41130 CARBAJAL RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND WITNESS LIST: GREAT LAKES PROOF OF SERVICE PRE-TRIAL HEARING RETURN OF SERVICE ** NO SERVICE REQUIRED: CROSS -DEFENDANT PRETRIAL ORDER ANSWER FILED PROOF OF SERVICE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS: GREAT -LAKES CARRIERS PROOF OF SERVICE ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR -ADMISSIONS NOTICE SENT FOR: 09/08/97 10:00 AM

PRE-TRIAL HEARING

I

PAGE 5 08/18/09

CRT PSN CRT CLK PSN CLK BKW

CLK BKW CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK BKW

CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK TLP

CLK TLP CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT TLP CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK LMF CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK TLP

j.

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


72 74 09/08/97 76 09/18/97

77 75 10/07/97

78 79 10/15/97

80 10/16/97

82 10/31/97

83 84 11/07/97

85 11/10/97

89 86 11/25/97 87

88 12/01/97

90 12/09/97

91

92 12/11/97

93 01/08/98

94 01/12/98 95 01/13/98 96 02/12/98

97 03/13/98

98 03/19/98

99 04/07/98

100

101 04/09/98

-er


D 004

D 004

D 004


HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PRE-TRIAL HEARING PRETRIAL ORDER -(ADJOURNMENT OF PRETRIAL) LETTER NOTICE SENT FOR: 11/10/97 11:30 AM


PROOF OF SERVICE FILED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR -ADMISSIONS: DREILICK PROOF OF SERVICE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT & -SUMMONS ANSWER TO (HUBER) 2ND AMENDED -COMPLAINT: GREAT LAKES PROOF OF SERVICE ANSWER TO (HUNT) 2ND AMENDED -COMPLAINT: GREAT LAKES PROOF OF SERVICE RETURN OF SERVICE PLTF. HUBER'S ANSWER TO AFFIR. -DEFENSES & NEW MATTERS. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -(PL. LUCZAK 96-3328-NI-C) PRE-TRIAL HEARING PRETRIAL, SCHEDULING &

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ORDERED

DEF. GREAT LAKES ANSER TO -LUCZAK 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT DEF. DRIELICK ANSWER TO 2ND -AMENDED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-19136 PURCELL PROOF OF SERVICE PL. HUNT'S WITNESS LIST PROOF OF SERVICE ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-19136 PURCELL PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED WITNESS LIST: GREAT LAKES EXHIBIT LIST: GREAT LAKES PROOF OF SERVICE STIPULATION & ORDER TO ADD -PARTY DEFENDANTS THIRD AMENDED SUMMONS AND -COMPLAINT RETURN OF SERVICE RETURN OF SERVICE RETURN OF SERVICE DEF. LOGISTICS• ANSWER THIRD -AMENDED COMPLAINT ANSWER TO 3RD AMENDED

PAGE 6 08/18/09

CLK TLP CRT TLP CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK TLP

CLK TLP CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK SMR CLK CLK PSN CLK CRT SEW CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

I --------

- _2. - ~--- ,---0---1


102 05/13/98

103 05/18/98 104 06/ 01/ 98

105

106 06/02/98

107 06/03/98

110 06/15/98 111 06/17/98

112

113 114 115 06/22/98 116 07/15/98

117 07/20/98

118 07/22/98

119 07/27/98

120

121 07/28/98

122 08/10/98

.. --·.-r· ·. ·- -~_ ... _.-,.-.,_. · --- ------.--._-,-.--·,-1 · · · - .- __ ,,· ·

CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 PAGE 7 08/18/09

D 006

D 006

D 006 D 006


-COMPLAINT; GREAT LAKES AMENDED 3RD AMENDED SUMMONS -AND COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY -(PLTFS. LUCZAK TO RESPOND) MOTION HEARING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY -GRANTED -ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES TO -BE FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS. -ORDER SIGNED & FILED. ACTION IN COURT FILED PROOF OF SERVICE 1ST AMENDMENT TO PLTF HUNT'S -LIST OF WITNESSES PROOF OF SERVICE (5) ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-41497 HYVONEN APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-41497 HYVONEN RE-ASSIGNED HYVONEN TO FORSTER RE-ASSIGNED FORSTER TO HYVONEN PROOF OF SERVICE FILED NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION OF -NON PARTY PROOF OF SERVICE EXPERT WITNESS LIST; GREAT -LAKES CARRIERS PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00078539 AMT $20.00

CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK SMR CLK SMR CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK SMR CLK SMR CLK SMR CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR

SET NEXT DATE FOR: 08/24/98 10:00 AM CLK MOTION HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

SARGENT TRUCKING'S MOTION FOR -AN AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHED. -AND MEDIATION ORDER NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION OF -NON PARTY DEFAULT AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEF. PROOF OF SERVICE SARGENT TRUCKING'S NOTICE OF -NON PARTY LIABILITY MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00009825 AMT $20.00

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK SMR

SET NEXT DATE FOR: 08/24/98 9:00 AM CLK MOTION HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

GREAT LAKES'S MOTION TO SEEK -ALLOCATION OF FAULT TO NON -PARTY NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE GREAT LAKES AMENDED WITNESS

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

- --- ---r --- ---~--- - -


123 08/12/98

124 08/17/98

125 08/21/98

126 08/24/98

127

128 08/27/98 129 09/21/98

130 10/02/98

131 10/14/98

132 10/19/98

133 134 10/27/98

135 10/30/98 136 11/17/98

137 12/14/98

-1

CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE

-LIST PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00010397 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/14/98 1:00 PM


SARGENT TRUCKING'S MOTION NOTICE OF HEARING STIPULATION & ORDER TO EXTEND -DISCOVERY DEADLINES PL. HUNT'S ANSWER MOTION TO -SEEK ALLOCATION OF FAULT TO -NON PARTY PL. HUNT'S ANSWER & BRIEF TO -MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY -DISPOSITION PROOF OF SERVICE GREAT LAKES' RESPONSE TO -HUNT'S ANSWER TO MOTION BRIEF IN SUPPORT PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION HEARING -TO SEEK ALLOCATION OF FAULT -OF NON PARTY---ADJOURNED -FOR AMENDED PT----MR. HYVONEN -HAS 30 DAYS TO NAME WITNESSES -DISCOVERY CUT OFF 120 DAYS -MEDIATION NOT TO BE SET UNTIL -AFTER 12/24/98 ACTION IN COURT FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 10/19/98 2:30 PM


-DEFT. GREAT LAKES MOTION TO -SEEK ALLOCATION OF FAULT RE-NTC. OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS -ENTERED AS INTERESTED PARTY -UNTIL AN ORDER IS SIGNED 2ND AMENDED WITNESS LIST -GREAT LAKES PROOF OF SERVICE MISCELLANOUS HEARING -GREAT LAKES MOTION TO -ALLOCATE FAULT ---RULING ON RECORD ACTION IN COURT FILED NOTICE OF FAULT OF NON PARTY PROOF OF SERVICE ~OTICE OF PRESENTMENT ORDER PERMITTING FILING OF -NOTICE OF FAULT AS TO NON -PARTY PROOF OF SERVICE FILED

PAGE 8 08/18/09

CLK CLK CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT SMR CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK SMR CLK SMR

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CRT SMR CRT CRT CRT CLK SMR CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

____ __._ __ ·._, ----- c'---q


138 02/09/99 139 04/08/99

140 06/25/99 141 07/09/99

142 07/12/99 143 07/23/99

144 07/27/99

145 07/29/99

146

147

148 08/02/99 149 08/06/99

150 08/16/99

151 09/22/99

152 09/29/99

153

154

155

156

--- ------ - ----r ---------~·

. _·: r I


MEDIATION NOTICE: 4/15/99 STIPULATION & ORDER TO ADJOURN -MEDIATION (TO 8/25/99) PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00023220 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/29/99 1:30 PM


SARGENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY -DISPOSITION BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PL. ANSWER TO MOTION FOR -SUMMARY DISPOSITION BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION PROOF OF SERVICE GREAT LAKE'S ANSWER/RESPONSE -TO SARGENT'S MOT. FOR SUMMARY -DISPOSITION PROOF OF SERVICE DEFT. GREAT LAKES CARRIER'S -BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO MOTION -FOR SUMMARY DISP. SARGENT TRUCKING REPLY TO -RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR -SUMMARY DISPOSITION MOTION HEARING -MOTION FOR SUMMARY -DISPOSITON: UNDER ADVISEMENT -ORAL ARGUMENTS ON RECORD. ACTION IN COURT FILED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPARTE -ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF -JAMIE BATESON AFFIDAVIT OF MILES PURCELL PROTECTIVE ORDER MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00024799 AMT $20.00 -(FEE PAID FOR EMERGENCY MOT.) RETURN FROM MEDIATION -MEDIATION PAPERS FILED -MEDIATION REJECTED NOTICE SENT FOR: 01/14/00 8:30 AM

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

NOTICE SENT FOR: 02/10/00 8:30 AM TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

NOTICE SENT FOR: 02/23/00 9:00 AM JURY TRIAL HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE


NOTICE SENT FOR: 04/04/00 9:00 AM

PAGE 9 08/18/09

CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK LMF

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR

CLK CLK TLP CLK CLK CLK LML

CLK LML

CLK LML

CLK LML

CLK LML

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-1 ,- -- .. ·. --


157 158 10/26/99

159 11/08/99

160 11/09/99

161 12/08/99

162 12/15/99

163

164 01/03/00 165 02/01/00

166 02/10/00

167

170

------------r

----T -____ ·.-c _---.-- -,.,--ccr


D 005

D 005

FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

JURY TRIAL HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

-SEE ALSO 96-3328 LUCZAK -VDRIELICK AND 97-3238 HUBER -V-

DRIELICK SET ON THESE SAME DATES. PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00028098 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/08/99 10:00 AM


MOTION TO FILE A FOURTH AMEND. -COMPLAINT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION NTC. OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: ALL MOTIONS -SCHEDULED FOR 11/08/99 ARE -ADJOURNED/RESET. CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 12/08/99 1:30 PM


MOTION TO FILE 4TH AMENDED -COMPLAINT ORDER GRANTING PL. HUNT'S -MOTION TO FILE A FOURTH -AMENDED COMPLAINT PL. HUNT'S FOURTH AMENDED -COMPLAINT NON-SERVICE DISMISSAL -MERMAID TRANSPORTATION MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY CLERK DISMISSED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00031972 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/14/00 3:30 PM


MOTION TO SET TRIAL SCHEDULE NTC. OF HEARING SARGENT TRUCKING'S ANSWER TO -HUNT'S 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT SARGENT TRUCKING'S CROSS CLAIM -AGAINST GREAT LAKES CARRIERS, -R. DRIELICK, C. DRIELICK MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: DATE SET FOR -TRIAL MANAGMENT CONFERENCE. -COURT MET WITH COUNSEL. -TRIAL MANAGMENT CONFERENCE -WILL BE HELD ON 2/23/00 TRIAL -DATE. ALL ATTORNEYS ARE TO -BE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LML CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CRT PSN CRT CLK PSN CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- ------------- ------r

. _,~-. r


168 02/14/00

169 171 02/15/00 172

173

174

175

176

177 o 2 / 18 / o ·o

178 02/23/00

179 02/24/00

180 02/25/00

I --

-_-.• -. r · ·- · · --- ----- --.- ·· -- -· -----1


D 006

D 006

XD003


-OF MR. CHEATHAM, WHO MAY SEND -A SUBSTITUTE. -SOMEONE WITH AUTHORITY TO -SETTLE THE CASE MUST BE -PRESENT FOR EACH PARTY EITHER -IN PERSON, OR IF OUT OF STATE -BY PHONE. GREAT LAKES -CARRIER IS REQUIRED TO BE -PRESENT. THIS CASE IS TO GO -TO TRIAL ON 3/14/00. -A 5 TO 6 DAY TRIAL IS -ANTICIPATED. -THE 2/14/00 MOTION TO SET -TRIAL SCHEDULE IS ADJOURNED. GREAT LAKES LOGISTICS ANSWER -TO PLTF. HUNT'S FOURTH -AMENDED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE FILED CASE ACTIVITY REPORT REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 02/23/00 9:00 AM


SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/23/00 8:30 AM TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY ATTORNEY: P-11815 CHEATHAM

FROM: HYVONEN,STUART W., TO: CHEATHAM,CHARLES C.,

SARGENT TRUCKING REPLY TO -PL. RESPONSE & TO CO-DEF. -GEAT LAKES LOGISTICS & GREAT -LAKES CARRIERS RESPONSE TO -MOTION FOR SUMMARY -DISPOSITION ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-41130 CARBAJAL OBJECTION & RESPONSE TO CROSS -CLAIM PROOF OF SERVICE DEFT'S GREAT LAKES CARRIERS -OBJECTION TO CONSOLIDATION -FOR TRIAL & REQUEST FOR SEP. -TRIALS PURSUANT TO MCR2.505 PROOF OF SERVICE MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: PARTIES HAVE -SETTLED CASE. -MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT -IS SET FOR 3/14/00. CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/14/00 8:30 AM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

-(MOTION TO APPROVE -SETTLEMENT)

PAGE 11 08/18/09

CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK PSN

CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

CLK CLK

I

• i

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


181 03/02/00

182 03/14/00

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191 03/15/00 192 03/16/00 193 03/24/00

194 04/10/00

195 04/24/00

---------r

--'-f """C,--"· I .... - .. ,, ,- , .. '


D 003

D 004

D 006

D 001

D 002

999


MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00033232 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/14/00 8:31 AM


HUNT'S MOTION FOR DIST. OF -WRONGFUL DEATH PROCEEDS HUNT'S MOTION TO ALLOW SETTLE. -& ENTRY OF DISMISSAL OF CLAIM NTC. OF INTENTION TO TAKE -DEFAULT JDMT. AGAINST MERMAID NTC. OF HEARING (2) PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER ALLOWING SETTLEMENT & -ENTRY OF DISMISSAL OF CLAIM -(GREAT LAKES CARRIERS, -GREAT LAKES LOGISTICS & -SARGENT TRUCKING) MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE DISMISSED MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE DISMISSED MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE DISMISSED DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS TO -MERMAID TRUCKING CONSENT JUDGMENT -(R. DRIELICK & C. DRIELICK) MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE SETTLED MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE SETTLED MOTION HEARING -MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT: -TESTIMONY: MARIE HUNT. -SETTLEMENT PLACED ON RECORD. -ORDERS SIGNED. -PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF -FUNDS PLACED ON RECORD; -WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO BE -FILED WITHIN 21 DAYS. -COSTS & ATTORNEY FEES -APPROVED - ORDER TO BE -SUBMITTED SEPARATELY. ACTION IN COURT FILED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ORDER FOR PARTIAL DISTRIBUTION -OF WRONGFUL DEATH PROCEEDS ORDER FOR DISTRIBUTION OF -REMAINING BALANCE OF WRONGFUL -DEATH PROCEEDS DOMESTIC/GENERAL CIVIL JGMT ORDER STIPULATION & ORDER: DISMISS -GREAT LAKES CARRIERS & -GREAT LAKES LOGISTICS -(PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED -3/14/00)

PAGE 12 08/18/09

CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK SMR CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

"I ---- -


196

197 04/26/00 198 05/17/00

199

200

201 12/04/00

202 01/10/01

203 01/22/01 204 01/23/01 205 01/25/01 206 02/23/01

207 02/28/01

210 03/20/01

208 03/26/01

209 04/04/01

211 04/09/01

----r- -------~-- -

·--·.r: I


XD003

XD004

XD005

FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE DISMISSED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED NON SERVICE DISMISSAL -CROSS DEF. R. DREILICK -CROSS DEF. C. DREILICK MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY CLERK DISMISSED MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY CLERK DISMISSED GARNISHMENT/DISCOVERY RECEIPT# 00046500 AMT $15.00 REQUEST/WRIT FOR GARNISHMENT PROOF OF SERVICE; GARNISHMENT GARNISHEE DISCLOSURE PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: COURT & -COUNSEL MET IN CHAMBERS. -CASE STATUS REVIEW HAS BEEN -SCHEDULED. -MR. CARBAJAL WILL ADVISE THE -COURT AS TO THE STATUS OF THE -CASE OR THE GARNISHMENT WILL -BE DISMISSED. CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/20/01 1:30 PM


- ( STATUS REVIEW) OBJECTION TO MOTION TO QUASH -GARNISHMENTS PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00051667 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/16/01 11:00 AM


GARNISHEE DEF. MOTION TO -COMPEL ANSWERS TO -INTERROGATORIES & REQUEST FOR -PRODUCTION LETTER (HEARING DATE) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00052197 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/16/01 11:01 AM


MOTION TO QUASH WRITS OF -GARNISHMENT NOTICE OF HEARING MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00052499 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/16/01 11:01 AM

CRT PSN CRT CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CLK TKD

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK TKD CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-----------r ----~-~~·-

·- ··-·r ··-.-c.,-,--,·· --_,--_ ·--·~------,


212 04/10/01

213 04/12/01

214 04/18/01

215 216 217 04/20/01

218

219

220 04/24/01

T

··--- ·1



MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO -INTERROGATORIES NOTICE OF HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OBJECTION TO MOTION TO QUASH -GARNISHMENTS MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: COURT MET -WITH ATTORNEY CARBAJAL & -ATTORNEY ANDERSON HAD A PHONE -CONFERENCE TODAY REGARDING -GARNISHEE DEF. EMPIRE'S -MOTION TO QUASH. -THE PARTIES AGREED TO ADJOURN -THE HEARING ON 4/16/01. THE -PARTIES WILL CONDUCT -DISCOVERY FOR 45 DAYS & THEN -EMPIRE WILL CONTACT THE -CLERK'S OFFICE & RESCHEDULE -THEIR MOTION, IF NECESSARY. -IF THERE IS A MOTION FILED, -GARNISHEE PL. GREAT LAKES -MUST RESPOND TO THE SUBSTANCE -OF THE MOTION AT LEAST 7 DAYS -PRIOR TOO THE HEARING. REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 04/16/01 11:00 AM


CASE ACTIVITY REPORT OBJECTION TO MOTION TO QUASH MISCELLANOUS HEARING -COURT HAD A CONFERENCE WITH. -MR. CARBAJAL (IN PERSON) AND -MR. ANDERSON (BY PHONE) ON -4/12/01. PURSUANT TO THE -PHONE CONFERENCE, THE COURT -WILL ADJOURN THE REVIEW -SCHEDULED FOR TODAY TO -6/15/01. IF THIS MATTER HAS -NOT BEEN RESOLVED, OR MOTION -SCHEDULED, THE ATTORNEYS & -PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR AT THIS -TIME TO ADVISE THE COURT OF -THE STATUS OF THE CASE. REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 04/20/01 1:30 PM


CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/15/01 8:30 AM


- (REVIEW) · STIPULATED ORDER COMPELLING -ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES & -REQUEST TO PRODUCE OF DEF.

PAGE 14 08/18/09

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN

CLK PSN CLK PSN CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN

CLK PSN CLK

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


221

222 05/07/01 223 05/14/01 224

225 06/06/01

226

227 228 06/11/01

229 06/14/01 230

231 06/18/01

232 06/19/01

233

234 06/20/01

235 06/21/01

236 06/29/01 237

238 07/02/01 239 07/27/01

--1 ,-----------

--·-':-r -- ... ___ ... --------·-,-,

CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 PAGE 15 FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

-SARGENT TRUCKING, ONLY DEF. DRIELICK'S ANSWERS TO -INTERROGATORIES OF GARNISHEE -DEF. EMPIRE FIRE & INSURANCE DEF. DRIELICK'S ANSWERS TO -REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF -DOCUMENTS PROOF OF SERVICE RE-NOTICE OF HEARING RE-NOTICE OF HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/11/01 2:30 PM


-(QUASH GARNISHMENT) EMPIRE'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF -IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO -QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT JOINT ANSWER TO EMPIRE'S -MOTION TO QUASH WRITS OF -GARNISHMENT BRIEF IN SUPPORT RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH -WRITS OF GARNISHMENT RE-NOTICE OF HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/22/01 1:30 PM


-(QUASH GARNISHMENT) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN -OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO -QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT PL. RESPONSE TO MOTIONS & -BRIEFS TO QUASH WRITS OF -GARNISHMENT RESPONDENTS RESPONSE TO THE -REPLY BRIEF OF EMPIRE REPLY BRIEF OF EMPIRE FIRE &

-MARINE TO BRIEF IN ANSWER TO -QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT PROOF OF SERVICE DEF. GARGENT TRUCKING'S -CONCURRENCE WITH ALL OF -RESPONDENT'S RESPONSES TO -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE'S MOTION -TO QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT PL. ANSWER & RESPONSE TO -MOTION & BRIEFS TO QUASH -WRITS OF GARNISHMENT RE-NOTICE OF HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/27/01 1:30 PM


-(MOTION TO QUASH WRITS) RE-NOTICE OF HEARING (7/27/01) MOTION HEARING -MOTION TO QUASH WRITS (EMPIRE -MARINE INS.): DENIED.

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK CLK TKD CLK CLK CLK TKD CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK CLK PSN CRT PSN CRT CRT

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


240 07/31/01 241 08/06/01

242 08/20/01

243 08/24/01

244 10/05/01

245 10/08/01

246 11/08/01

247 11/26/01

248 12/19/01

, . ·-·~ r

------r -- ----~--- l ,-------

1


-ORAL ARGUMENT ON RECORD. -COURT'S FINDINGS ON RECORD. -TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY -8/20/01, WITH BRIEFS DUE -RE: SECOND ASPECT OF -BUSINESS EXCLUSION BY 9/24/01 -IF TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PREPARED -BY THAT TIME, THE TIME FOR -FILING BRIEFS WILL BE -EXTENDED BY THE NUMBER OF -DAYS THE TRANSCRIPT IS -DELAYED. ACTION IN COURT FILED OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF -PRESENTMENT MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00055575 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/24/01 1:30 PM


MOTION TO SETTLE ORDER NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE * TRANSCRIPT: 7/27/2001 ** MOTION TO QUASH WRITS OF

GARNISHMENT ORDER (DENYING MOTION TO -QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT) RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO EMPIRE -FIRE & MARINE'S MOTION TO -QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT PROOF OF SERVICE EMPIRE'S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION -TO QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT ORDER DENYING EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE'S MOTION TO QUASH THE -WRITS OF GARNISHMENT MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00057931 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/07/02 3:30 PM


EMPIRE'S MOTION FOR -RECONSIDERATION NOTICE OF HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00058494 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 01/07/02 3:30 PM

MOTION HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE,

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT RESPONDENT'S OBJECTION & -RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR -RECONSIDERATION

CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK CLK CLK CLK

CLK

CLK CLK CLK

PSN PSN

SMR

CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PJM

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK

-'[

I I,

i

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--------------- ----r

--- -_---- --------r


249 12/26/01

250 01/07/02 251

252 01/09/02

253 01/29/02

254 02/04/02

255 02/05/02 256 02/11/02

257 02/19/02

258 08/07/02

259

260 09/20/02

261 09/25/02 262 10/07/02

263 10/17/02

264 10/29/02

l :- ---------

~-1 - ,_ .. -_ .... - -·-':r


NTC OF HRG PROOF OF SERVICE EMPIRES SUPP BRIEF IN SUPPORT -OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE-NOTICE OF HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/04/02 11:00 AM


-(RECONSIDERATION) ORDER DENYING EMPIRE'S MOTION -FOR RECONSIDERATION EMPIRE'S RESPONSE TO MOTION -FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BRIEF IN SUPPORT PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION HEARING -EMPIRE'S MOTION FOR -RECONSIDERATION: -SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS TO BE -FILED. MR. CARBAJAL'S BRIEF -TO BE FILED WITHIN 7 DAYS. -MR. ANDERSON'S BRIEF TO BE -FILED WITHIN 7 DAYS -THEREAFTER. -ORAL ARGUMENTS ON RECORD. ACTION IN COURT FILED SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT -OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF -JUDGMENT EMPIRE'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF -IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO -MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: CASE IS SET -FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE -MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/20/02 1:30 PM


- (ORAL ARGUMENT) MOTION HEARING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - ( ORAL ARGUMENT) ; GRANTED -JUDGMENT TO ENTER AGAINST -EMPIRE INS. IN THE AMOUNT OF -$750,000.00 PLUS STATUTORY - FEES & COSTS. ACTION IN COURT FILED NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00065670 AMT $20.00 OBJECTION _TO NOTICE OF -PRESENTMENT OF PROPOSED -JUDGMENT MOTION FILED

CLK CLK CLK TKD CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


265 266

267

268 11/04/02

269 11/18/02 270

271 11/19/02

272 12/16/02

273 12/18/02 274 01/08/03

275 01/17/03 276 01/22/03 277 01/30/03

278 01/31/03

281 02/03/03

279 02/04/03

280

282 02/06/03

283 02/07/03

------r · 1 -----

.. - . - -~-- ·.,·- _ .... ~- -, :-----1


P 001

FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

RECEIPT# 00065911 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/18/02 3:30 PM


MOTION TO SETTLE JUDGMENTS NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE RE-NOTICE OF HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/18/02 3:31 PM


-(ENTRY OF ORDER) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00065925 AMT $20.00 GARNISHEE'S MOTION FOR ENTRY -OF ORDER NOTICE OF HEARING GARNISHEE DEF. RESPONSE TO PL. -MOTION TO SETTLE JUDGMENT RE-NOTICE OF HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 12/16/02 10:00 AM


(MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00066433 AMT $20.00 AMENDED MOTION TO SETTLE -JUDGMENTS RE-NOTICE OF HEARING; 12/16/02 PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION HEARING -TO SETTLE JMT. - GRANTED; -INTEREST FROM GARNISHMENT; -JMT. TO BE ENTERED UPON -PROPER PRESENTATION; ACTION IN COURT FILED NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT PROOF OF SERVICE JUDGMENT PROOF OF SERVICE FILED APPEARANCE: J. HARRISON FOR -B. HUBER APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-26612 TROGAN -(ATTY FOR APPELLANT) REPORTER CERTIFICATE ORDERING -TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL APPEAL COURT OF APPEALS RECEIPT# 00068282 AMT $25.00 APPEARANCE -D. CARBAJAL AS CO-COUNSEL FOR -APPELLEES APPEARANCE -P. RIEBSCHLEGER FOR APPELLEES - LUCZAK & LUCZAK APPEARANCE -J. SHINNERS FOR APPPELLANT

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK .PSN

CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT LLK CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK LLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK KKM

CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

] ... - .·.·.··


284 02/19/03

285 02/26/03

286 03/12/03

287 ·03/28/03

288 05/13/03 289 05/29/03

290 07/16/03

291 07/24/03

292 08/04/03

293 10/06/04

294 11/05/04

295 11/29/04

.---_·-.-.. ··.·,·-.·-···-·1 -1 . ··-· ..... .


-DRIELICK W/PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00068737 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/21/03 11:30 AM


MTN. TO ACCEPT GARNISHEE DEFT. -INSURANCE POLICY AS BOND NTC. OF HRG RE-NTC. OF HRG. (FOR 4/4/03, -ATTY TO RE-NTC.AGAIN SINCE -JUDGE NOT AVAILABLE) RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO MOTION -TO ACCEPT GARNISHEE DEF. -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN -APPEAL BOND & TO STAY -PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/04/03 11:00 AM


-(MTN. TO ACCEPT INSURANCE --POLICY AS BOND) RE-NTC. OF HRG. AFFIDAVIT OF RECOGNIZANCE ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE DEF. -EMPIRE'S MOTION TO POST IT'S -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND & TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -PENDING THE APPEAL STIPULATION FOR EXTENSIION OF -TIME TO FILE APPELEE'S BRIEF PROOF OF SERVICE *** - FILE SENT TO COURT OF - APPEALS; LANSING - (1 TRANSCRIPT) *** AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING -TRANSCRIPT & AFFIDAVIT OF -MAILING MI COURT OF APPEALS OPINION -AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED -IN PART, AND REMANDED MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00081255 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/29/04 9:00 AM

MOTION TO STRIKE HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

DEFT. GREAT LAKES CARRIERS -CORP. MTN. TO STRIKE DEFT'S -RELIANCE ON A JURY DEMAND NTC. OF HRG. MI COURT OF APPEALS -REMITTITUR OF RECORD -****RETURNED**** MI COURT OF APPEALS -UNPUBLISHED OPINION -**** AFFIRMED IN PART,

CLK CLK KKM

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK MKR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK

-- ----r

ii

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- - -----------r -----~-~---

-"----:...'.{


296

297 11/30/04 298 12/02/04

299

300 12/08/04

301

302

303

304 305

306 12/15/04

307 01/20/05

308 02/01/05

-- -----------------, ----~-~~-


-REVERSED IN PART AND -REMANDED**** MOTION HEARING -(1.TO STRIKE GARNISHEE DEFT, -2. TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND); -1. & 2. UNDER ADVISEMENT; -MR. ANDERSON'S RESPONSE NOT -REC'D BY THE COURT; -MR. CARBAJAL TO FILE RESPONSE -BRIEF W/IN 2 WEEKS; -MR. ANDERSON HAS ONE WEEK -TO RESPOND THEREAFTER; ACTION IN COURT FILED ORDER REOPENING CASE cquRT OF APPEALS/SUPREME COURT -CASE RETURN REPORT GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE -AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY -RESPONSE TO MTN. TO STRIKE -RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND NOTICE SENT FOR: 03/02/05 8:30 AM

TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE




*PREVIOUS NOTICE SET IN ERROR, PLEASE DISREGARD. THIS ONE IS CORRECT* PROOF OF SERVICE FILED GARNISHOR'S REPLY TO GARNISHEE -DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE -INSURANCE COMPANY'S RESPONSE -TO MTN. TO STRIKE RELIANCE ON -JURY DEMAND GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE -AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY -RESPONSE TO GARNISHOR'S REPLY -TO GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE -FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE -COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO MTN. -TO STRIKE RELIANCE ON JURY -DEMAND ORDER (ON MTN. TO STRIKE -GARNISHEE DEFT'S RELIANCE ON -JURY DEMAND - GRANTED) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00082296 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/22/05 9:00 AM


PAGE 20 08/18/09

CLK CLK CRT MKR CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK MKR CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK LLK

CLK LLK

CLK LLK

CLK LLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK LLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


309 02/15/05

310

311 02/16/05

312 02/22/05

313 02/23/05

314 02/28/05

315 03/01/05

316 03/09/05

317 03/10/05

318 03/15/05

319 03/21/05


999

FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NOTICE OF HEARING RESPONSE TO GARNISHEE DEF. -MOTION FOR DISCOVERY MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00082517 AMT $20.00 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER -DENYING DISCOVERY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF GARNISHOR -MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER & -REPLY TO GARNISHEE DEF. -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE MOTION -FOR DISCOVERY PROOF OF SERVICE NOTICE OF HRG FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/22/05 9:01 AM


-(PROTECTIVE ORDER) MOTION HEARING -(EMPIRE) MOTION FOR DISCOVERY -ORAL ARGUMENT ON RECORD. -OPINION ISSUED BY COURT IN -JANUARY WAS NOT SENT TO -COUNSEL. -PHONE STATUS CONFERENCE TO -BE INITIATED BY MR. CARBJAL. -SET FOR 3/28/05. ACTION IN COURT FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/28/05 1:30 PM


-(PHONE STATUS CONFERENCE) NOTICE OF. ENTRY OF ORDER UNDER - 7 DAY RULE - (ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE -DEF. EMPIRE MOTION FOR - DISCOVERY) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00082701 AMT $20.00 JOINDER IN MOTION FOR -PROTECTIVE ORDER DENYING -DISCOVERY RETURN OF SERVICE * NO SUMMONS - CASE REOPENED ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE DEF. -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. -CO. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY GARNISHEE DEFENDANT EMPIRE -FIRE & MARINE RESPONSE TO -MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER -DENYING DISCOVERY * TRANSCRIPT: 11/29/04 ** MOTION TO STRIKE JURY

- DEMAND * TRANSCRIPT: 2/22/05 ** MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK

CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN <:;LK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

------r- ----------·

-· r -_',·T I


320 03/30/05 321 322

323

324

325 03/31/05

326 06/20/05

327 07/11/05 328

329 08/04/05

330 os/08/05

331 09/21/05 332

333

334 11/14/05

335 12/19/05

FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

-PROTECTIVE ORDER STATUS REPORT REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 10/17/05 9:30 AM


SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/01/os 9:00 AM NON-JURY TRIAL HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/22/05 9:00 AM NON-JURY TRIAL HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF MARIE -HUNT, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE -OF THE ESTATE OF EUGENE HUNT, -DECEASED (N. TROGAN) PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00084174 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/11/05 2:30 PM

MOTION TO COMPEL HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

& TO ADJOURN TRIAL NOTICE OF HEARING RE-NOTICE OF HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 08/01/05 3:30 PM


SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/09/05 8:30 AM MOTION TO COMPEL HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

- (DEFT. EMPIRE) RE-NTC. OF HRG. MI CT OF APPEALS ORDER DENYING -APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO -APPEAL REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/06/06 1:30 PM



STATUS ORDER MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00085917 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 12/12/05 9:00 AM


GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE -AND MARINE INS. CO. MTN. TO -COMPEL DEFT/CROSS-DEFT. GREAT -LAKES CARRIERS CORP. REPSONSE NTC. OF HRG. DEFT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS -AS TO SARGENT TRUCKING DEFT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK PSN

CLK PSN

CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK

CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK KKM

CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK KKM

CLK KKM

CLK CLK MKR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--',T

'


336 01/05/06

337 01/30/06

338 04/18/06

339 04/28/06

340 05/15/06

341

342 06/08/06

343 06/13/06

344 06/15/06

345 06/23/06

346 06/30/06

347 10/10/06 348

349 10/11/06

350 10/16/06

351 10/26/06

352 05/24/07

. ----.-. . . . . . --- ---···---1


-AS TO GREAT LAKES CARRIERS DEFT. GREAT LAKES ANS. TO -GARNISHEE REQUEST TO ADMIT MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00086765 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/20/06 1:30 PM

MOTION HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRA.THE

GARNISHEE MTN. TO DEEM REQUEST -ADMITTED NTC. OF HRG. STIPULATON & ORDER -(RE: TRIAL BRIEFS) GARNISHEE DEFENDANT EMPIRE'S -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT -WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND -LEGAL AUTHORITY TRIAL BRIEF PROOF OF SERVICE TRIAL BRIEF ON ISSUE OF -LEGALITY & ENFORCEABLITY OF -EXCLUSIONS IN THE EMPIRE -POLICY OF INSURANCE STIP/ORDER RE: ORDER ENTERED -ON 4/17/06 GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE REPLY -BRIEF TO GARNISHEE PLTF'S -ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY AND -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PROOF OF SERVICE FILED GARNISHEE PLTF'S SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF AND CORRECTIONS GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE'S -RESPONSE BRIEF TO GARNISHEE -PLTF'S TRIAL BRIEF RE: THE -LEGALITY AND ENFORCEABILITY -OF EXCLUSIONS IN THE EMPIRE -POLICY OF INSURANCE GARNISHEE DEFT. REPLY BRIEF TO -PLTF. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF INTENT TO DISMISS-NO PROGRESS NOTICE SENT FOR: 11/20/06 8:00 AM

LACK OF PROGRESS HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRA.THE

REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 11/20/06 8:00 AM LACK OF PROGRESS HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRA.THE

*** 10/11/06 PER LAW CLERK, -REMOVE LOP AS COURT IS IN -PROCESS OF WRITING OPINION*** LETTER FROM ATTY. (RE: LACK -OF PROGRESS) REQUEST/ORDER TO REMOVE FROM -LACK OF PROGRESS DOCKET NOTICE OF HRG FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/29/07 1:30 PM

MOTION HEARING

q.,K CLK KKM CLK CLK KKM

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK MKW CLK MKW

CLK MKW

CLK CLK CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK PSL CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-1 ---------


353 06/28/07

354 06/29/07 355

356 09/13/07

357 09/21/07

358 09/24/07 359 361 12/08/08

362 12/15/08

363 12/19/08

364 08/14/09

365 368

366 08/18/09

T

·-·-·:r I

--------- -- --1


999

999


HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE -ORAL ARGUMENT MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE -DUE TO THE UNAVAILABILITY OF -MR CHEATHAM, THE ORAL -ARGUMENT IS RESCHEDULED TO: -FRIDAY, 9/21/07@ 2:00 P.M.; REMOVE CALENDAR DATES CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/21/07 2:00 PM


-(ORAL ARGUMENT) GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S -SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE BRIEF -TO GARNISHEE PLTF'S TRIAL -BRIEF RE: THE LEGALITY AND -ENFORCEABILITY OF -EXCLUSIONS IN THE EMPIRE -POLICY OF INSURANCE MISCELLANOUS HEARING UNDER ADVISEMENT - RETURNED 8/14/09 -(ORAL ARGUMENT); -ON REMAND FROM COURT OF -APPEALS; -COURT TO ISSUE WRITTEN -OPINION; ACTION IN COURT FILED D. DYER #0122 - ON THE RECORD GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S 2ND -SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF W/LEGAL -AUTHORITY SUPPORTING ITS -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PLTFS REPLY TO GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO -2ND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, -AUTHORITY & PROPOSED FINDINGS -OF FACT PROOF OF SERVICE PLTF'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO -THEIR REPLY TO GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. -2ND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, -AUTHORITY & PROPOSED FINDINGS -OF FACT PROOF OF SERVICE MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE REMOVE FROM UNDER ADVISEMENT OPINION MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE SETTLED DOMESTIC/GENERAL CIVIL JGMT ORDER OPINION -(PER SARA DOYLE, OPINION -DOES NOT CLOSE CASE) **-(10/19/09 - PER SARA DOYLE,

PAGE 24 08/18/09

CLK CRT DAD CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK DAD CLK DAD CLK

CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT LMF CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK LMF CLK LMF CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT PSL CRT CRT PSL CRT PSL CRT CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK

-1

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

------T ------------- -T

~1 - -.-, I

CLOSED CJO CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 96-003280-NI JUDGE GILL

367 10/05/09

369 10/26/09

370

371 10/28/09

372 11/16/09

373 11/17/09

374 11/25/09

375 12/02/09

376 01/06/10

377 01/08/10

378 01/19/10

379 04/12/10

380 04/26/10

381 04/27/10

382 04/29/10 P 001


-OPINION CLOSES CASE) ORDER RE-ISSUING OPINION & -ORDER W/POS MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00104939 AMT $20.00 GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE AND -MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY'S -MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION OF -OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING -OBJECTION TO GARNISHMENT AND -FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO -WHETHER OPINION & ORDER WAS -FINAL ORDER DISPOSING OF -ALL CLAIMS BRIEF IN SUPPORT NOTICE OF HEARING (NO .HEARING -DATE) DEF. MERMAID TRANSPORTATION -MAIL RETURNED RESPONSE TO EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE MOTION FOR -RECONSIDERATION OF OPINION BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR -RECONSIDERATION PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE FROM -PLAINTIFF GARNISHEE PLAINTIFF REPLY TO -GARNISHEE DEFENDANT MOTION -FOR RECONSIDERATION PROOF OF SERVICE GARNISHEE DEFENDANT EMPIRE -FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO -RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO -MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION & -REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF -MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF -OPINION & ORDER OVERRULING -OBJECTION TO GARNISHMENT & -FOR CLARIFICATION AST TO -OPINION WAS FINAL ORDER JOINDER OF DEFENDANT -SARGENT TRUCKING, INC. JOINDER TO REPLY TO MOTION -FOR RECONSIDERATION PL HUBER'S JOINDER TO REPLY TO -MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER ON THE OBJECTION & MTN -FOR RECONSIDERATION GARNISHEE DEFT-APPELLANT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE -INSURANCE CO'S CLAIM OF -APPEAL REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE OF -ORDERING TRANSCRIPT -APPEARANCE (CO-COUNSEL

- --- -----------r

-- _-,-r

PAGE 25 08/18/09

CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK PSL

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK LMF

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- --------------r -- -~-~---

--r - -- - --- ------ ---.ccc:,-1


383 05/03/10

384

385 05/07/10

386 0·5/24/10

387 05/27/10

388 06/01/10

389 06/04/10

390

391 07/07/10

392 07/12/10

393

------ ---T -----~---- -

--------------:-----·-r--.-c''f • ·· ,-CCC·--•


P 001

FILE 03/21/96 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

-CARBAJAL) APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-26612 TROGAN ** COURT OF APPEALS FILING PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ** COURT OF APPEALS FILING REPORTER/RECORDER CERTIFICATE -OF ORDERING OF TRANSCRIPT ON -APPEAL TRANSCRIPT: 9/21/07 ***ORAL·ARGUMENT*** MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00107765 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/07/10 10:00 AM


GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S -EMERGENCY MTN TO ALLOW EMPIRE -TO POST INSURANCE POLICY AS -AN APPEAL BOND TO STAY NOTICE OF HEARING AFFIDAVIT OF RECOGNIZANCE ORDER MI COURT OF APPEALS -(DISMISSED) SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/12/10 1:30 PM


-(MTN TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -PENDING APPEAL) RE-NOTICE OF HEARING RESPONSE TO GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE'S EMERGENCY MTN TO -ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -PENDING APPEAL GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S REPLY -BRIEF W/AMENDED EXHIBIT IN -SUPPORT .OF EMERGENCY MOTION -TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -PENDING APPEAL ORDER TO VACATE ORDERS NUNC -PRO TUNC ORDER ON THE OBJECTION & -MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OPINION & ORDER ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO -POST INSURANCE POLICY AS AN -APPEAL BOND TO STAY -PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL MOTION HEARING B WRZESINSKI, #5068 CER

CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK LMF

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK LMF

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT NDN CRT

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

·.-~.-.,,.,-,- "-----··.:c·--.,---·: -, --·---·· . ···-·--r .·-.--.-------------~


394 07/13/10 395 07/22/10 396 07/28/10

397 08/04/10

398 08/09/10

399 08/11/10

400 08/12/10

401 08/13/10

402 09/07/10

403 09/21/10

404 11/29/10

412

405 12/13/10

406 01/24/11

407 11/21/12

408 01/02/13

P 001


-(RE: POST INS POLICY AS BOND -/TO VACATE); -MOTION GRANTED, PLUS -ADDITIONAL BOND FOR THE -INTEREST; ACTION IN COURT FILED COURT OF APPEALS ORDER: DENIED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED GARNISHEE DEFT-APPELLANT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE -INSURANCE COMPANY'S DELAYED -APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO -APPEAL APPEAL COURT OF APPEALS· RECEIPT# 00108656 AMT $25.00 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED SUPERSEDEAS BOND REPORTER/RECORDER CERTIFICATE -OF ORDERING TRANSCRIPT ON -APPEAL (DATED 07/18/10) AMENDED REPORTER/RECORDER -CERTIFICATE OF ORDERING OF -TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL REPORTER/RECORDER CERTIFICATE -OF ORDERING TRANSCRIPT ON -APPEAL NOTICE OF FILING & AFFIDAVIT -OF MAILING APPEAL TO: COURT -OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT:07/12/10 ***MOTION -TO VACATE ORDERS NUNC PRO -TUNC & EMERGENCY MOTION TO -ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY*** MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS -ORDER MI COURT OF APPEAµS ORDER: -(CLAIM OF APPEAL DISMISSED) APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-26612 TROGAN PROOF OF SERVICE ** FILE SENT TO COURT OF

- APPEALS - LANSING * (8 TRANSCRIPTS)

****************************** ****************************** JOINDER TO RESPONSE & AMENDED -RESPONSE TO EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE BRIEF ON APPEAL PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER MI COURT OF APPEALS -DELAYED APP FOR LEAVE TO -APPEAL: DISMISSED MI COURT OF APPEALS ORDER - (REVERSE) APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT

PAGE 27 08/18/09

CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK NDN CLK NDN CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN

CLK NDN CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK LMF

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-----r


409 01/28/13

410 03/03/14

411 413 07/28/14

414

415 09/15/14

416 10/22/14

417 10/27/14

418 03/10/15 419

420 05/01/15

421 06/22/15

422 07/10/15

423 07/20/15 424


P 001

IP003


RECEIPT# 00120821 AMT $25.00 PLTFS/APPELLA:NTS' APPLICATION -FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE -SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-26612 TROGAN ASSIGNEE-DEFT/APPELLANT AND -DEFT/APPELLANT'S REPLY TO -GARNISHEE/APPELLEE'S -RESPONSE TO BRIEF ON APPEAL PROOF OF SERVICE FILED FILE RETURNED FROM MI SUPREME -COURT WITH 8 TRANSCRIPTS ****************************** ****************************** MI SUPREME COURT ORDER -(COURT OF APPEALS ORDER IS -REVERSED AND CAUSE IS -REMANDED) NOTICE OF HRG FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 10/21/14 2:30 PM

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/26/15 10:00 AM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING -(CLOSING ARGUMENTS) SCHEDULING ORDER POST REMAND -FROM SUPREME COURT AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER POST -REMAND FROM SUPREME COURT REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/24/15 10:00 AM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING -(CLOSING ARGUMENTS) STIP/ORDER EXTENDING ALL DATES - IN SCHEDULING ORDER . GARNISHEE PLTFS TRIAL BRIEF -ON REMAND FROM THE MICHIGAN -SUPREME COURT GARNISHOR PLTFS APPENDIX GARNISHOR PLTFS PROPOSED -FINDINGS OF FACT AND -CONCLUSION OF LAW APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-49522 ZACHARY GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY'S -REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT -WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND -CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REMAND -FROM THE MI SUPREME COURT REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/31/15 1.:30 PM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING

· -'cl• I

PAGE 28 08/18/09

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK ALG CLK

CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK DAD CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK CLK ALG CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK ALG CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK NDN

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

·-··'-' -_ .• -- ---. c""-""'J -,-.--7=--·-·- ----


425 GILL

426 07/21/15 427

428 08/14/15

429 08/17/15 430 10/01/15 431 10/15/15

432 11/09/15

433

434 11/10/15 435

436 11/16/15

437 11/20/15

438 11/24/15

439 11/30/15

1

------ - - - - ' ----~-~----

-·T , ---


IP003


(CLOSING ARGUMENTS) RE-NOTICE OF HEARING CASE REASSIGNMENT

FROM: CAPRATHE,WILLIAM J., TO: GILL,HARRY P.,

REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 08/14/15 1:30 PM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING (CLOSING ARGUMENTS)

RE-NOTICE OF HEARING MISCELLANOUS HEARING J MCCULLOUGH, #8464 CER ( ORAL ARGUMENTS) -ORAL ARGUMENTS HEARD; -COURT WILL RENDER A WRITTEN -OPINION; ACTION IN COURT FILED OPINION CERT OF ORDERING APPEAL TO: -COURT OF APPEALS APPEAL COURT OF APPEALS RECEIPT# 00134262 AMT $25.00 COA, STATE OF MICHIGAN -JURISDICTION CHECKLIST MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00134267 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/16/15 2:30 PM

MOTION HEARING -PLTF MTN FOR ENTRY OF -JUDGMENT -W/POS & NTC OF HRG REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/30/15 10:00 AM

MOTION HEARING -(RE: ENTRY OF JUDGMENT) RE-NTC OF HRG APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF MARIE -HUNT, PERS REP OF ESTATE OF -EUGENE HUNT, DECEASED (BRUCE -TROGAN, ALREADY ON) PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE FILED APP ON BEHALF OF MARIE HUNT, -PER REP OF THE ESTATE OF -EUGENE W HUNT, DECEASED -(BRUCE F TROGAN) NOTICE OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT

**TRANSCRIPT: 8/14/15 ***ORAL ARGUMENTS AFTER

-REMAND FROM SUPREME COURT GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE INS CO'S RESPONSE TO -MTN FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00134502 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 01/21/16 10:30 AM

MOTION HEARING

PAGE 29 08/18/09

CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK NDN

CLK CLK CRT NDN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK NDN CLK DAD CLK DAD CLK CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK DAD

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK ALG

CLK

( !

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

· 1 -

I , ....


440

441 12/01/15 442 12/21/15

443

444 12/29/15

445 01/12/16

446 01/14/16

447

448 01/15/16

449 01/20/16

450

------r -------~-- -

·-c. -·-:-=-=-=-::.a.'--·=q ' -- .- .. ::-,·-~.-- .. ,_· --~_-··c·.··1 ·1 , ...... .


-(TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO RE-POST -INSURANCE POLICY) MOTION HEARING J MCCULLOUGH, #8464 CER -MTN RE: ENTRY OF JUDGMENT: -RULINGS AS STATED ON RECORD; -BRIEFS DUE 12/21/15 AND -RESPONSE DUE 1/8/16; -EMPIRE'S MTN FOR STAY TO BE -HEARD ON 1/21/16@ 10:30; ACTION IN COURT FILED GARNISHOR PLTFS 1 TRIAL BRIEF -RE: EMPIRE 1 S RESPONSIBILITY -FOR INTEREST ON JUDGMENT GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE INS OC'S SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO MTN FOR -ENTRY OF JUDGMENT GARNISHOR PLTFS RESPONSE TO -GARNISHEE DEFTS MOTION TO -ALLOW EMPIRE TO REPOST INS -POLICY OR REPORT INS. POLICY -PLUS 2010 SUPERCEDE AS BOND -AS AN APPEAL BOND TO STAY -EXECUrioN OF ANY JUDGMENT -PENDING APPEAL SET NEXT DATE FOR: 01/27/16 1:30

MOTION HEARING -(ENTRY OF JUDGMENT) RE-NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 01/21/16 10:30

MOTION HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 01/27/16 1:31

MOTION HEARING -(TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO RE-POST -INSURANCE POLICY) RE-NTC OF HEARING GARNISHOR PLTF'S REPLY TO -EMPIRE 1 S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF -IN RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR -ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PROOF OF SERVICE GARNSIHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE &

-MARINE INS. C0 1 S REPLY BRIEF -IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ALLOW -EMPIRE TO RE-POST INS. POLICY -OR REPOST INS. POLICY PLUS -2010 SUPERSEDEAS BOND AS AN -APPEAL BOND TO STAY EXECUTION -OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO'S -REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO -TO GARNISHOR PLTF 1 S TRIAL -BRIEF RE: EMPIRE'S -RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTEREST -ON JUDGMENT

PM

AM

PM

CLK CLK CRT DAD CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK DAD CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK CLK ALG CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF

CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD

CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

- ------ -- --- ----- ----r

--·-··-----_ -------.,·--1 . -- --.-· :


451 01/27/16

452 01/29/16

453 02/12/16

454 02/16/16 455 03/01/16

456 04/01/16

457 04/14/16

458

459


MOTION HEARING J MCCULLOUGH, #8464 CER (MOTION TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO RE -POST INS POLICY OR RE-POST -INS POLICY PLUS 2010 -SUPERCEDES BOND AS AN -APPEAL BOND TO STAY EXECUTION -OF ANY JUDGMENT PENDING -APPEAL(DEFT) & MOTION FOR -ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (PLTF -SARGENT TRUCKING)) -MATTERS NEED FURTHER -BRIEFING; -COURT TO PREPARE NEW -SCHEDULING ORDER; -RULINGS ON THE -RECORD AS TO SOME MATTERS; -HRG 5/4/16@ 1:30PM; ACTION IN COURT FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 05/04/16 1:30 PM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING (ORAL ARGUMENTS) SCHEDULING ORDER FOLLOWING -HEARING OF JAN 27, 2016 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 05/04/16 1:31 PM

MOTION HEARING -(MOTION TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO -RE-POST INSURANCE POLICY) RE-NOTICE OF HEARING ORDER MI COURT OF APPEALS GARNISHOR PLTF'S SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN SUPPORT FOR -ASSIGNMENT BY ROGER & COREY -DRIELICK TO GARNISHOR PLTFS GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE AND -MARINE INSURANCE CO RESPONSE -BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO -GARNISHOR PLTFS SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN SUPPORT FOR -ASSIGNEMNT RE: ISSUES THE -COURT REQUESTED THE PARTIES -ADDRESS WITH RESPECT TO -GARNISHOR PLTFS PENDING -MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE -5/4/16 MOTION HEARING -IS RESCHEDULED TO THURSDAY -5/12/16@ 9:45AM FOR THE -REASON THE COURT IS NOT -AVAILABLE; CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 05/12/16 9:45 AM

MOTION HEARING -(MOTION TO ALLOW EMPIRE -RE-POST INSURANCE POLICY) -(ORAL ARGUMENTS) REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 05/04/16 1:31 PM

-- . -.'.--. ; -- - •. ··c··,_-,_':C~~=:

PAGE 31 08/18/09

CRT NDN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK NDN CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF

CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK ALG CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT ALG CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK ALG CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK ALG

, __

I 1·.·.

fl

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


460

461 04/15/16

462 05/17 /1.6

463

464 05/18/16 465 06/02/16

466 467 468 06/06/16

···,, '[ • a ·- - 1


MOTION HEARING REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 05/04/16 1:30 PM CLK ALG

MISCELLANOUS HEARING GARNISHOR PLTFS REPLY TO -EMPIRES RESPONSE TO -SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON -JUDGMENT INTEREST NOTICE OF HRG FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/02/16 10:30 AM

MOTION HEARING -(MOTION TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO -RE-POST INSURANCE POLICY) NOTICE OF HRG FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/02/16 10:31 AM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING

CLK ALG CLK CLK CLK CLK ALG CLK

CLK CLK CLK ALG CLK

-(MOTION RE:PREJUDGMENT AND CLK -POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST) CLK PROOF OF SERVICE FILED CLK ALG MISCELLANOUS HEARING CRT ALG J MCCULLOUGH, #8464 CER CRT -ORAL ARGUMENTS; CRT -ARGUMENTS HEARD; CRT -COURT SIGNS 3 JUDGMENTS CRT -FINAL; CRT -AS TO ISSUE OF APPROPRIATE CRT -BOND-COURT FINDS EMPIRE TO CRT -POST A BOND@ 110% OF CRT -JUDGMENTS; CRT ACTION IN COURT FILED CLK ALG ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT CLK ALG NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT CLK ALG

END OF SUMMARY ............................ , .

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- ---------r T

-1 , ___ ,,_--_·-


BAY COUNTY

P 001 LUCZAK,THOMAS,

ATY:RIEBSCHLEGER,PE P-30689 989-790-2102


TPOOl DRIELICK,COREY,A. DBA-ROGER DRIELICK TRUCKING,,

FILE 03/26/96 ADJ DT 08/18/09 CLOSE 08/18/09 SCAO:SEC CLINE 03

VS D 001 DRIELICK,COREY,A. 14207 SHERIDAN ROAD MONTROSE MI 48457 ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J P-41337 989-249-4900 DISPOSITION 08/18/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 07/29/96 ANS

D 002 DRIELICK,ROGER, DBA-ROGER DRIELICK TRUCKING,,

14207 SHERIDAN RD. MONTROSE MI 48457 ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J P-41337 989-249-4900 DISPOSITION 08/18/09 SET OP! SERVICE/ANS 07/29/96 ANS

D 003 GREAT LAKES CARRIERS CORP.,, ATY:CARBAJAL,DAVID, 11/10/97 P-41130 989-790-0960 DISPOSITION 08/18/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 12/01/97 ANS

D 004 GREAT LAKES LOGISTICS,, ATY:PURCELL,MILES J 11/10/97 P-19136 989-225-2435 DISPOSITION 08/18/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 01/08/98 ANS

D 005 MERMAID TRANSPORTATION,, 01/08/99

DISPOSITION 08/18/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS

D 006 SARGENT TRUCKING INC.,, ATY:CHEATHAM,CHARLE 01/08/99 P-11815 248-247-3300 DISPOSITION 08/18/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS

VS TDOOl GREAT LAKES CARRIERS,INC.,

ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J 05/01/97 ATY:CARBAJAL,DAVID, 05/01/97 P-41337 989-249-4900


TP002 DRIELICK,ROGER, DBA-ROGER DRIELICK TRUCKING,,

ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J 05/01/97 P-41337 989-249-4900 SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS

IPOOl CARBARJAL,DAVID, P.O. BOX 1966 SAGINAW MI 48605-1966

P-41130 989-790-0960 DISPOSITION 08/18/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 07/15/97 ANS

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-------------r

·- .--- - l - I . - - - -

CLOSED CJO CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 96-003328-NI JUDGE GILL FILE 03/26/96 ADJ DT 08/18/09 CLOSE

ATY:CARBAJAL,DAVID, 04/29/10 P-41130 989-790-0960

IP002 EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS,, ATY:ZACHARY,NICOLET 06/22/15 P-49522 248-641-7600

Num Date Judge

l 03/26/96 CAPRATHE

2 06/20/96

3

4 06/28/96

5

6 07/29/96 7

8 08/08/96

9 12 09/16/96 10 09/25/96 11

14 10/14/96

15 16

17 13 10/16/96

18 20 11/18/96 19 11/21/96 21 02/20/97

22 23 04/07/97

24 04/22/97

25 26 05/01/97

Actions, Judgments, Case Notes

Chg/Pty Event Description/Comments

. D 002

D 001

D 001

D 002

D 001 D 002

D 001

D 001 D 002

D 002

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT RECEIPT# 00040221 AMT $140.00 -JURY DEMAND FILED RETURN OF SERVICE. *(6/17/96)* RETURN OF SERVICE *(6/13/96)* APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-46217 FREEL APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-46217 FREEL ANSWER FILED ANSWER FILED PROOF OF SERVICE NOTICE SENT FOR: 09/16/96 ll:00 AM


PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PRE-TRIAL HEARING PRETRIAL ORDER ORDER OF JOINDER

* (W/96-3280-NI-C) SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY: P-41337 SHINNERS RE-ASSIGNED FREEL TO SHINNER SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY: P-41337 SHINNERS RE-ASSIGNED FREEL TO SHINNER NOTICE SENT FOR: ll/18/96 10:00 AM


PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PRE-TRIAL HEARING PRETRIAL ORDER NOTICE SENT FOR: 03/24/97 11:30 AM


PROOF OF SERVICE FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 05/27/97 5:00 PM


NOTICE SENT FOR: 05/27/97 10:30 AM PRE-TRIAL HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

PROOF OF SERVICE FILED SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

-.-· .- .. ·- -·. -------------oc~---=:r

PAGE 2 08/18/09

CLK RRL

CLK CLK CMG CLK CLK CMG CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK LML

CLK LML CRT LML CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK LML

CLK LML CRT BKW CLK PSN CLK BKW

CLK BKW CLK BKW

CLK TLP

CLK TLP CLK PJM

i'

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


27 05/13/97

28 05/23/97 29

32 05/27/97 30 05/30/97

31 33 06/11/97 35 06/27/97 36 07/15/97

37 07/22/97

38 07/31/97

34 08/05/97

39 40 08/13/97

41 09/08/97 43 09/18/97

42 10/07/97

44 45 10/15/97

46 10/31/97

47 11/07/97

53 11/10/97 48 11/12/97

49 11/14/97 50 11/25/97 51

52 12/01/97

-1 ' .. --.. - ... ·---·1


TDOOl TDOOl

TDOOl TDOOl

D 003

FILE 03/26/96 ADJ DT 08/18/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

-THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 05/27/97 5:00 PM


MOTION & ORDER -EXTENSION OF SUMM: 08/22/97 8:00 AM

EXPIRATION OF EXTENSION OF SUMMONS HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

PRE-TRIAL HEARING MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00058667 AMT $20.00 * FEE PAID (5/23/97 MOTION & -ORDER) SECOND 3RD PARTY SUMMONS PRETRIAL ORDER RETURN OF SERVICE ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-41130 CARBAJAL RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND PROOF OF SERVICE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS: GREAT -LAKES CARRIERS ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR -ADMISSIONS NOTICE SENT FOR: 09/08/97 10:00 AM


PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PL. ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR -ADMISSIONS PROOF OF SERVICE PRE-TRIAL HEARING PRETRIAL ORDER -(ADJOURNMENT OF PRETRIAL) NOTICE SENT FOR: 11/10/97 11:30 AM


PROOF OF SERVICE FILED RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR -ADMISSIONS: DRIELICK PROOF OF SERVICE ANSWER TO (HUBER) 2ND AMENDED -COMPLAINT: GREAT LAKES

· PROOF OF SERVICE ANSWER TO (HUNT) 2ND AMENDED -COMPLAINT: GREAT LAKES PROOF OF SERVICE PLTF. HUBER'S ANSWER TO AFFIR. -DEFENSES AND NEW MATTERS. PRE-TRIAL HEARING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AMENDED SUMMONS (2) PROOF OF SERVICE'FILED PRETRIAL, SCHEDULING & ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

ORDERED ANSWER FILED

CLK CLK TLP

CLK PSN CLK PSN

CRT TLP CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK TLP

CLK TLP CLK PSN CLK CLK CRT TLP CLK PSN CLK CLK TLP

CLK TLP CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CRT SEW CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


54 12/09/97

55

56 01/08/98

57 01/12/98 58 02/12/98

59 03/13/98

60 05/08/98

61 06/01/98 62

63 06/02/98

64 06/12/98 65 07/15/98.

286 07/16/98

66 07/28/98

67 08/10/98

68 08/17/98

--·~ T I

--... --------,~


D 004

D 004


ATTORNEY: P-41130 CARBAJAL DEF. GREAT LAKES ANSWER TO -LUCZAK 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT DEF. DRIELICK ANSWER TO 1ST -AMENDED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-19136 PURCELL PROOF OF SERVICE ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-19136 PURCELL PROOF OF SERVICE FILED WITNESS LIST: GREAT LAKES EXHIBIT LIST: GREAT LAKES PROOF OF SERVICE STIPULATION & ORDER TO ADD -PARTY DEFENDANTS MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00074762 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/01/98 11:00 AM


DEFT. GREAT LAKE'S MOTION TO -COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM PLTFS' -LUCZAK NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY MOTION HEARING -MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY: -GRANTED -ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES TO -FILED WITHIN 10 DAYS. -ORDER SIGNED & FILED. ACTION IN COURT FILED PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE FILED NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION OF -NON PARTY PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE EXPERT WITNESS LIST; GREAT -LAKES CARRIERS MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00009826 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 08/24/98 9:00 AM


GREAT LAKES MOTION TO SEEK -ALLOCATION OF FAULT OF NON--PARTY NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE GREAT LAKES AMENDED WITNESS -LIST PROOF OF SERVICE STIPULATION & ORDER TO EXTEND

~1 ' ..

PAGE 4 08/18/09

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK. CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK CLK SMR CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK PSN

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

- 'T


69 08/21/98

70 08/24/98

71 08/27/98 72 09/21/98

73 10/19/98

74

75 10/20/98 76 10/30/98 77 11/17/98

78 12/14/98 79 01/08/99

80 02/09/99 81 02/22/99

285 82 03/24/99

83 04/08/99

84 06/25/99 85 07/09/99


-DISCOVERY DEADLINES PL. LUCZAK'S ANSWER TO MOTION -TO SEEK ALLOCATION OF FAULT -ON NON-PARTY MOTION HEARING -TO SEEK ALLOCATION OF FAULT -OF NON PARTY-----ADJOURNED -FOR AMENDED---MR. HYVONEN -HAS 30 DAY S TO NAME -WITNESSES; DISCOVERY CUT OFF -120 DAYS-MEDIATION NOT TO BE -SET UNTIL AFTER 12/24/98 ACTION IN COURT FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 10/19/98 2:30 PM


-(GREAT LAKES MOTION TO SEEK -ALLOCATION OF FAULT ON NONPTY RE-NTC. OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE GREAT LAKES' 2ND AMENDED -WITNESS LIST PROOF OF SERVICE MISCELLANOUS HEARING -GREAT LAKES MOTION TO -ALLOCATE FAULT -RULING ON RECORD ACTION IN COURT FILED NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT ORDER PERMITTING FILING OF -NOTICE OF FAULT AS TO NON -PARTY PROOF OF SERVICE FILED SECOND AMENDED SUMMONS & -COMPLAINT MEDIATION NOTICE: 4/15/99 MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00017646 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/15/99 2:30 PM


MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE -TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY PROOF OF SERVICE NOTICE OF HEARING SARGENT TRUCKING'S ANSWER TO -PLTF LUCZAK'S 2ND AMENDED -COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE STIPULATION & ORDER TO -ADJOURN MEDIATION (TO 8/25) PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00023221 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/29/99 1:30 PM


CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CRT SMR CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK SMR CLK SMR

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CRT SMR CRT CRT CRT CLK SMR CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK LMF

CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

- -~. ~-~ _ _.,._. ,.----,---,,-1 I


86 07/27/99

87 07/29/99

88 08/02/99 89 08/06/99

90 08/16/99

91 09/22/99

92 09/29/99

93

94

95

96

97 98 10/26/99

99 11/04/99

~1 ,~--~---- ·-··.-, I

- - ------------1


SARGENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY -DISPOSITION BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION NOTICE OF HEARING GREAT LAKES' ANSWER/RESPONSE -TO SARGENT'S MOTION FOR SUM. -DISPOSITION MOTION HEARING -MOTION FOR SUMMARY -DISPOSITION: UNDER ADVISEMENT -ORAL ARGUMENTS ON RECORD. ACTION IN COURT FILED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EX-PARTE -ORDER AFFIDAVIT OF MILES PURCELL PROTECTIVE ORDER MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00024796 AMT $20.00 -(FEE PAID FOR EMERGENCY MOT.) RETURN FROM MEDIATION -MEDIATION PAPERS FILED -MEDIATION REJECTED NOTICE SENT FOR: 01/14/00 8:30 AM






-SEE ALSO 96-3280 HUNT -VDRIELICK AND 97-3238 HUBER -V-

DRIELICK SET ON THESE SAMES DATES. PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00028103 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/08/99 10:00 AM


GREAT LAKE'S MOTION TO DISMISS -FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISC. NTC. OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00028420 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/08/99 10:00 AM


PLTF. LUCZAK'S MOT. TO FILE A

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR


CLK LML

CLK LML

CLK LML

CLK LML

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LML CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR

CLK

CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-·-1 . - .. -- -~---


100 11/08/99

101

102 11/09/99

103 12/08/99

104

105 12/09/99 106 12/14/99

107 12/15/99

108

109

110 12/17/99 111 12/29/99

112 01/03/00 113 02/09/00

114

116 02/10/00

__ ._r I ---------- - .- -- -----.------1 . --- - -.- --- . ·.·· --·.-1


D 005

D 006

FILE 03/26/96 ADJ DT 08/18/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

-THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION NTC. OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE ANSWER TO MOTION TO COMPEL -DISCOVERY PROOF OF SERVICE MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: ALL MOTIONS -SCHEDULED FOR 11/08/99 ARE -ADJOURNED/RESET. CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 12/08/99 1:30 PM


-(MOTION TO DISMISS FOR -FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY) ORDER GRANTING PL. LUCZAK'S -THIRD AMENDED OCMPLAINT MISCELLANOUS HEARING -MR. RIEBSCHLAGER TO RETURN -MEDICAL AUTHORIZATION FOR -MAYO CLINIC TO MR. O'NEILL -WITHIN 7 DAYS. ACTION IN COURT FILED NTC. OF PRESENTMENT PROOF OF SERVICE NON-SERVICE DISMISSAL - (D-5) MERMAID TRANSPORTATION - (D-6) SARGENT TRUCKING MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY CLERK DISMISSED MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY CLERK DISMISSED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ORDER (RE; MOTION FOR -DISCOVERY) PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PLTF'S LUCZAKS' 3RD AMENDED -COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE GREAT LAKES' ANSWER TO LUCZAKS -3RD & 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: DATE SET FOR -TRIAL MANAGMENT CONFERENCE. -COURT MET WITH COUNSEL. -TRIAL MANAGMENT CONFERENCE -WILL BE HELD ON 2/23/00 TRIAL -DATE. ALL ATTORNEYS ARE TO -BE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION -OF MR. CHEATHAM, WHO MAY SEND -A SUBSTITUTE. -SOMEONE WITH AUTHORITY TO -SETTLE THE CASE MUST BE -PRESENT FOR EACH PARTY EITHER

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK SMR CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CLK SMR CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

----r -----~-~~~-

.-.-r ._.._ .. _ .· .... _,_,--·-•1 ----•.,,,--ec.-, ! I·-. . ... ·:_·-. T . - . , __ .- --- , ,c.-,·.,1


115 02/14/00 117 02/15/00 118

119

120

121 02/18/00

122 02/24/00

123 02/25/00

124 03/14/00

125

126

128

127 03/15/00

129 130 04/24/00

131

D 006

D 001

D 002

D 003

FILE 03/26/96 ADJ DT 08/18/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

-IN PERSON, OR IF OUT OF STATE -BY PHONE. GREAT LAKES -CARRIER IS REQUIRED TO BE -PRESENT. THIS CASE IS TO GO -TO TRIAL ON 4/04/00; COUNSEL -TO ADVISE THE COURT OF THE -ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF THE -TRIAL BY 2/23/00. -2/14/00 MOTION TO SET TRIAL -SCHEDULE IS ADJOURNED. PROOF OF SERVICE FILED CASE ACTIVITY REPORT REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 02/23/00 9:00 AM



SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY ATTORNEY: P-11815 CHEATHAM

SARGENT TRUCKING REPLY TO -PL HUNT'S RESPONSE & TO -CO DEF. GREAT LAKES LOGISTICS -& GREAT LAKES CARRIER CORP. -RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR -SUMMARY DISPOSITION REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 03/14/00 9:00 AM


MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: PARTIES HAVE -SETTLED CASE. SETTLEMENT -WILL BE PLACED ON RECORD ON -3/14/00. CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/14/00 8:30 AM


-(SETTLEMENT ON RECORD) PL. CONSENT JUDGMENT AGAINST -R. DRIELICK & C. DRIELICK MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE SETTLED MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE SETTLED MOTION HEARING -MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT: -SETTLEMENT PLACED ON RECORD. -ORDERS SIGNED. NTC. OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE ACTION IN COURT FILED STIPULATION & ORDER: DISMISS -GREAT LAKES CARRIER & GREAT -LAKES LOGISTICS MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE DISMISSED

CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK SMR CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK PSN

CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

CLK CLK PSN CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CLK SMR CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


132

133

134

135 04/26/00 136 08/21/00

137 08/23/00

138 12/04/00

139 01/10/01

140 01/22/01

141 142 01/23/01 143 01/25/01 144 02/23/01

145 02/28/01

146 04/20/01

---- ------------r --- ---------.

, -_-, r


D 004

TDOOl

999


MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE DISMISSED MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE DISMISSED DOMESTIC/GENERAL CIVIL JGMT ORDER

* ALL PARTIES DISPOSED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00041323 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 10/02/00 2:30 PM


MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF -AGREEMENT & MOTION FOR COSTS NTC. OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00041371 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 10/02/00 2:31 PM


MOTION TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF -AGREEMENT & FOR COSTS NTC. OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE GARNISHMENT/DISCOVERY RECEIPT# 00046499 AMT $15.00 REQUEST/WRIT OF GARNISHMENT

PROOF OF SERVICE; GARNISHMENT GARNISHEE DISCLOSURE PROOF OF SERVICE

GARNISHMENT/DISCOVERY RECEIPT# 00048587 AMT $15.00 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MISCELLANOUS HEARING

-CASE ACTIVITY: COURT & -COUNSEL MET IN CHAMBERS. -CASE STATUS REVIEW HAS BEEN -SCHEDULED. -MR. CARBAJAL WILL ADVISE THE -OCURT AS TO THE STATUS OF TH -CASE OR THE GARNISHMENT WILL -BE DISMISSED.

CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/20/01 1:30 PM


-(STATUS REVIEW) MISCELLANOUS HEARING -COURT HAD A CONFERENCE WITH - MR. CARBAJAL ( IN PERSON) AND -MR. ANDERSON (BY PHONE) ON -4/12/01. PURSUANT TO THE -PHONE CONFERENCE, THE COURT -WILL ADJOURN THE REVIEW

PAGE 9 08/18/09

CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK C,LK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK TKD

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PJM

CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK TKD CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT

l·-! l

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-----------r


147 148 06/06/01

149 150 08/01/01

151 08/06/01

152 08/20/01

153 08/24/01

154 10/os/01

155 10/08/01

156 11/08/01

157 12/21/01

158 01/02/02

159 01/07/02

160 01/09/02

-- T . · .. ·: -:---·-:


-SCHEDULED FOR TODAY TO -6/15/01. IF THIS MATTER HAS -NOT BEEN RESOLVED, OR MOTION -SCHEDULED, THE ATTORNEYS & -PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR AT THIS -TIME TO ADVISE THE COURT OF -THE STATUS OF THE CASE. - ( SEE : 9 6 - 3 2 8 0 ) CASE ACTIVITY REPORT JOINT ANSWER TO EMPIRE'S -MOTION TO QUASH WRITS OF -GARNISHMENT BRIEF IN SUPPORT NTC OF PRESENTMENT PROOF OF SERVICE OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF -PRESENTMENT (SEE: 96-3280-NI) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00055573 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/24/01 1:30 PM


MOTION TO SETTLE ORDER NTC. OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE * TRANSCRIPT: 7/27/2001 ** MOTION TO QUASH WRITS OF

GARNISHMENT - SEE 96-3280 ORDER (DENYING MOTION TO -QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT) RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO EMPIRE -FIRE & MARINE'S MOTION TO -QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT PROOF OF SERVICE EMPIRE'S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION -TO QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT - ( SEE : 9 6 - 3 2 8 0 ) ORDER DENYING EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE'S MOTION TO QUASH THE -WRITS OF GARNISHMENT MOTION FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 01/07/02 3:30 PM


MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT RESPONDENTS OBJECTION & -RESPONSE TO MOTION NTC OF HRG PROOF OF SERVICE RE-NOTICE OF HEARING (96-3280) PROOF OF SERVICE SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/04/02 11:00 AM


ORDER DENYING EMPIRE'S MOTION

-- ---r

PAGE 10 08/18/09

CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK TKD CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK LMF CLK CLK PSN CLK

_CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PJM CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK PSN

CLK PSN

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

. -.-.-r - .. • . .,.:-::-;.).·.


161 02/11/02

162 08/07/02

163

164 09/20/02

165 09/25/02 166 10/07/02

167 10/17/02

168 10/29/02

169 170

171

172 11/04/02

173 11/18/02 174

176 11/19/02

-- ------ ------r ---------~---

f , ...

CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 FILE.03/26/96 ADJ DT 08/18/09 CLOSE

-FOR RECONSIDERATION SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT -OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF -JUDGMENT MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: CASE IS SET -FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE -MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/20/02 1:30 PM


- (ORAL ARGUMENT) MOTION HEARING -MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - ( ORAL ARGUMENT) : GRANTED . -JUDGMENT TO ENTER AGAINST -EMPIRE IN THE AMOUNT OF -POLICY LIMITS - $750,000.00 -PLUS STATUTORY FEES & COSTS. ACTION IN COURT FILED NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00065672 AMT $20.00 OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF -PRESENTMENT OF PROPOSED -JUDGMENT MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00065913 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/18/02 3:30 PM






-(MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00066435 AMT $20.00 AMENDED MOTION TO SETTLE -JUDGMENTS

PAGE 11 08/18/09

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK


CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK


CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

I ,---- -·-- --r


177 12/16/02

178. 12/18/02 179 01/08/03

180 01/17/03 181 01/22/03 182 01/30/03

185 02/03/03

183 02/04/03

184

186 02/06/03

187 02/19/03

188 03/13/03

189 03/28/03 -

190 04/16/03

191 05/13/03 192 05/29/03

I - --- -- -

. ,,-; ~-- · 1


RE-NOTICE OF HEARING; 12/16/02 PROOF OF SERVICE MISCELLANOUS HEARING -ENTRY OF ORDER - GRANTED; -INTEREST FROM POINT OF -GARNISHMENT; -JMT. TO BE ENTERED UPON -PROPER PRESENTATION; ACTION IN COURT FILED NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT PROOF OF SERVICE JUDGMENT PROOF OF SERVICE FILED APPEARANCE: J. HARRISON FOR -B. HUBER REPORTER CERTIFICATE ORDERING -TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL APPEAL COURT OF APPEALS RECEIPT# 00068283 AMT $25.00 APPEARANCE -D. CARBAJAL AS CO-COUNSEL FOR -APPELLEES APPEARANCE -P. RIEBSCHLEGER FOR APPELLEES -LUCZAK & LUCZAK MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00068739 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/21/03 11:30 AM


MTN. TO ACCEPT GARNISHEE DEFT. -INSURANCE POLICY AS BOND NTC. OF HRG. RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO MOTION -TO ACCEPT GARNISHEE DEF. -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN -APPEAL BOND & TO STAY -PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/04/03 11:00 AM


-(MTN. TO ACCEPT INSURANCE --POLICY AS BOND)

RE-NTC. OF HRG. NTC. OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT -& AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING (X3) TRANSCRIPT (12/16/02) ***MTN. FOR ENTRY OF ORDER*** TRANSCRIPT (2/4/02) ***MTN. FOR RECONSIDERATION*** TRANSCRIPT (9/20/02) ***MTN. FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT* AFFIDAVIT OF RECOGNIZANCE ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE DEF. -EMPIRE'S MOTION TO POST IT'S -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND & TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

CLK CLK CRT LLK CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK LLK CLK PSN

:CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK KKM

CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK KKM

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM

CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

------;

--'"T I


193 08/04/03

194

195 11/05/04

196 11/29/04

197

198 11/30/04 199 12/01/04

200 12/02/04

201

202 12/08/04

203

204


-PENDING THE APPEAL **

FILE SENT TO COURT OF APPEALS - LANSING (3 TRANSCRIPTS)

AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING -TRANSCRIPT & AFFIDAVIT OF -MAILING MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00081256 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/29/04 9:00 AM


DEFT. GREAT LAKES CARRIERS -CORP. MTN. TO STRIKE DEFT'S -RELIANCE ON A JURY DEMAND NTC. OF HRG. MI COURT OF APPEALS -REMITTITUR OF RECORD -****RETURNED**** MI COURT OF APPEALS -UNPUBLISHED OPINION -**** AFFIRMED IN PART, -REVERSED IN PART AND -REMANDED**** MOTION HEARING -(1.TO STRIKE GARNISHEE DEFT, -2. TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND); -1. & 2. UNDER ADVISEMENT; -MR. ANDERSON'S RESPONSE NOT -REC'D BY THE COURT; -MR. CARBAJAL TO FILE RESPONSE -BRIEF W/IN 2 WEEKS; -MR. ANDERSON HAS ONE WEEK -TO RESPOND THEREAFTER; ACTION IN COURT FILED MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00081538 AMT $20.00 JOINDER TO MTN. TO STRIKE -GARNISHEE-DEFT'S RELIANCE -ON A JURY DEMAND ORDER REOPENING CASE COURT OF APPEALS/SUPREME COURT -CASE RETURN REPORT GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE -AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY -RESPONSE TO MTN. TO STRIKE -RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND NOTICE SENT FOR: 03/02/05 8:30 AM




CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK MKR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT MKR CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK MKR CLK MKR

CLK CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK LLK

CLK LLK

CLK LLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


205

206 207

208 12/15/04

209 01/20/os

210 02/01/05

211 02/16/05

212

213 02/22/05

214 02/23/05

--,

'! - . ----------~--- ''l'



*PREVIOUS NOTICE SET IN ERROR, PLEASE DISREGARD, THIS ONE IS CORRECT* PROOF OF SERVICE FILED GARNISHOR'S REPLY TO GARNISHEE -DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE -INSURANCE COMPANY'S RESPONSE -TO MTN. TO STRIKE RELIANCE ON -JURY DEMAND GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE -AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY -RESPONSE TO GARNISHOR'S REPLY -TO GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE -FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE -COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO MTN. -TO STRIKE RELIANCE ON JURY -DEMAND ORDER (ON MTN. TO STRIKE -GARNISHEE DEFT'S RELIANCE ON -JURY DEMAND - GRANTED) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00082298 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/22/05 9:00 AM


MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NOTICE OF HEARING RESPONSE TO GARNSHEE DEF. -MOTION FOR DISCOVER MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00082537 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/22/05 9:01 AM


MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF GARNISHOR -MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER & -REPLY TO GARNISHEE DEF. -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE MOTION -FOR DISCOVERY NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION HEARING -(EMPIRE) MOTION FOR DISCOVERY -ORAL ARGUMENT ON RECORD. -OPINION ISSUED BY COURT IN -JANUARY WAS NOT SENT TO -COUNSEL. -PHONE STATUS CONFERENCE TO -BE INITIATED BY MR. CARBJAL. -SET FOR 3/28/05. ACTION IN COURT FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/28/05 1:30 PM

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

PAGE 14 08/18/09

CLK LLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK LLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK


CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

r

L->,

··~·

i ' '

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

---- - --- - - ----r --


215 02/28/05

216 03/01/05

217 03/09/05

218 03/10/05

219 03/15/05

220 03/21/05

221 03/30/05 222 223

224

225

226 03/31/05

227 06/20/05

228 07/11/05 229

230 08/04/05

-1 -'r ,


999

FILE 03/26/96 ADJ DT 08/18/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE -(PHONE STATUS CONFERENCE) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER UNDER - 7 DAY RULE - (ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE -DEF. EMPIRE MOTION FOR - DISCOVERY) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00082702 AMT $20.00 JOINDER IN MOTION FOR -PROTECTIVE ORDER DENYING -DISCOVERY RETURN OF SERVICE * NO SUMMONS - CASE REOPENED ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE DEF. -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. -CO. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY GARNISHEE DEFENDANT EMPIRE -FIRE & MARINE RESPONSE TO -MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER -DENYING DISCOVERY * TRANSCRIPT: 11/29/04 ** MOTION TO STRIKE JURY

- DEMAND (SEE: 96-3280-NI-C)

* TRANSCRIPT: 2/22/05 ** MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

-PROTECTIVE ORDER (SEE: 96-3280-NI-C)

STATUS REPORT REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 10/17/05 9:30 AM



SET NEXT_ DATE FOR: 11/22/05 9: 00 AM NON-JURY TRIAL HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE



-& TO ADJOURN TRIAL NOTICE OF HEARING RE-NOTICE OF HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 08/01/05 3:30 PM


SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/09/05 8:30 AM

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK PSN

CLK PSN


CLK


CLK KKM

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

~I ·.-_·:-r


231 08/08/05

232 09/21/05 233

234

235 11/14/05

236 12/19/05

237 01/05/06

238 01/30/06

239 04/18/06

240 04/24/06 241 04/28/06

242 05/15/06

243

.· ._-.-- ... -.-.-- •-c· ·:er· . - -. . ,,-· --· ·1 --- ·r , -



-(DEFT. EMPIRE) RE-NTC. OF HRG MI CT OF APPEALS ORDER DENYING -APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO -APPEAL REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/06/06 1:30 PM



STATUS ORDER MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00085919 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 12/12/05 9:00 AM


GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE -AND MARINE INS. CO. MTN. TO -COMPEL DEFT/CROSS-DEFT. GREAT -LAKES CARRIERS CORP. REPSONSE NTC. OF HRG. DEFT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS -AS TO SARGENT TRUCKING DEFT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS -AS TO GREAT LAKES CARRIERS

DEFT. GREAT LAKES ANS. TO -GARNISHEE REQUEST TO ADMIT

MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00086766 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/20/06 1:30 PM


GARNISHEE MTN. TO DEEM REQUEST -ADMITTED NTC. OF HRG. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF GARNISHEE -DEFT EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE -INSURANCE CO'S MTN TO DEEM -REQUESTS TO ADMIT ADMITTED AS -TO DEFT/CROSS DEFT GREAT -LAKES CARRIERS CORP STIPULATON & ORDER -(RE: TRIAL BRIEFS) PROOF OF SERVICE FILED GARNISHEE DEFENDANT EMPIRE'S -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT -WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND -LEGAL AUTHORITY - (SEE: 96-3280-NI-C) TRIAL BRIEF PROOF OF SERVICE TRIAL BRIEF ON ISSUE OF -LEGALITY & ENFORCEABLITY OF

CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK KKM

CLK KKM

CLK CLK MKR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK LMF

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL CLK

!-

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


244 06/08/06

245 06/13/06

246 06/15/06

247 06/23/06

248 06/30/06

249 10/10/06 250

251 10/11/06

252 10/16/06

253 10/26/06

287 05/24/07

254 06/28/07

255 06/29/07

256 09/13/07

257 09/21/07

- ! ------------ . 'f-

I , --- c' r


999

FILE 03/26/96 ADJ DT 08/18/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

-EXCLUSIONS IN THE EMPIRE -POLICY OF INSURANCE - {SEE: 96-3280) STIP/ORDER RE: ORDER ENTERED -ON 4/17/06 GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE REPLY -BRIEF TO GARNISHEE PLTF'S -ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY AND -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PROOF OF SERVICE FILED GARNISHEE PLTF'S SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF AND CORRECTIONS GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE'S -,RESPONSE BRIEF TO GARNISHEE -PLTF'S TRIAL BRIEF RE: THE -LEGALITY AND ENFORCEABILITY -OF EXCLUSIONS IN THE EMPIRE -POLICY OF INSURANCE GARNISHEE DEFT. REPLY BRIEF TO -PLTF. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF INTENT TO DISMISS-NO PROGRESS NOTICE SENT FOR: 11/20/06 8:00 AM

LACK OF PROGRESS HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 11/20/06 8:00 AM LACK OF PROGRESS HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

*** 10/11/06 PER LAW CLERK, -REMOVE LOP AS COURT IS IN -PROCESS OF WRITING OPINION*** LETTER FROM ATTY. (RE: LACK -OF PROGRESS) REQUEST/ORDER TO REMOVE FROM -LACK OF PROGRESS DOCKET NOTICE OF HEARING ORAL -ARGUMENT MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE -DUE TO THE UNAVAILABILITY OF -MR CHEATHAM, THE ORAL -ARGUMENT IS RESCHEDULED TO: -FRIDAY, 9/21/07@ 2:00 P.M.; CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/21/07 2:00 PM


- ( ORAL ARGUMENT) GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S -SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE BRIEF -TO GARNISHEE PLTF'S TRIAL -BRIEF RE: THE LEGALITY AND -ENFORCEABILITY OF -EXCLUSIONS IN THE EMPIRE -POLICY OF INSURANCE MISCELLANOUS HEARING UNDER ADVISEMENT - RETURNED 8/14/09 -(ORAL ARGUMENT);

CLK CLK CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK MKW CLK MKW

CLK MKW

CLK CLK CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK LMF CLK CRT DAD CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK DAD CLK

CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT LMF CRT CRT CRT

!::-

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

------··--·--··--r ·-·~-----

-1 . ·-·· .. ·.· .· -.1 '


258 09/24/07 259 260 12/08/08

261 12/15/08

262 12/19/08

263 08/14/09

264 08/18/09

265

266 10/05/09

267 10/26/09

268

269 10/28/09

270 11/16/09


-ON REMAND FROM COURT OF -APPEALS; -COURT TO ISSUE WRITTEN -OPINION; ACTION IN COURT FILED D. DYER #0122 - ON THE RECORD GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S 2ND -SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF W/LEGAL -AUTHORITY SUPPORTING ITS -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PLTFS REPLY TO GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO -2ND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, -AUTHORITY & PROPOSED FINDINGS. -OF FACT PROOF OF SERVICE PLTF'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO -THEIR REPLY TO GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. -2ND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, -AUTHORITY & PROPOSED FINDINGS -OF FACT PROOF OF SERVICE MISCELLANOUS HEARING REMOVE FROM UNDER ADVISEMENT

999 OPINION SETTLED DOMESTIC/GENERAL CIVIL JGMT ORDER OPINION -(PER SARA DOYLE, OPINION -DOES NOT CLOSE CASE) **-(10/19/09 - PER SARA DOYLE, -OPINION CLOSES CASE) ORDER RE-ISSUING OPINION &

-ORDER W/POS MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00104942 AMT $20.00 GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE AND -MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY'S -MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION OF -OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING -OBJECTION TO GARNISHMENT AND -FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO -WHETHER OPINION & ORDER WAS -FINAL ORDER DISPOSING OF -ALL CLAIMS BRIEF IN SUPPORT NOTICE OF HEARING (NO HEARING -DATE) DEF. MERMAID TRANSPORTATION -MAIL RETURNED

- (SEE: 96-3280) RESPONSE TO EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE MOTION FOR -RECONSIDERATION OF OPINION BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR

CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK LMF CLK LMF CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT PSL CRT CRT PSL CRT CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK LMF

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

_, r


271 11/17/09

272 11/25/09

273 12/02/09

274 01/06/10

275 04/12/10

276 04/26/10

277 04/27/10

278 04/29/10

279 05/07/10

280 05/24/10

281 05/27/10

282 06/01/10

283 06/04/10


P 001

FILE 03/26/96 ADJ DT 08/18/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

-RECONSIDERATION PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE FROM -PLAINTIFF GARNISHEE PLAINTIFF REPLY TO -GARNISHEE DEFENDANT MOTION -FOR RECONSIDERATION PROOF OF SERVICE GARNISHEE DEFENDANT EMPIRE -FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO -RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO -MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION & -REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF -MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF -OPINION & ORDER OVERRULING -OBJECTION TO GARNISHMENT &

-FOR CLARIFICATION AST TO -OPINION WAS FINAL ORDER JOINDER OF DEFENDANT -SARGENT TRUCKING, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER ON THE OBJECTION & MTN -FOR RECONSIDERATION GARNISHEE DEFT-APPELLANT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE -INSURANCE CO'S CLAIM OF -APPEAL REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE OF -ORDERING TRANSCRIPT -APPEARANCE (CO-COUNSEL -CARBAJAL) REPORTER/RECORDER CERTIFICATE -OF ORDERING OF TRANSCRIPT ON -APPEAL TRANSCRIPT: 9/21/07 ***ORAL ARGUMENT*** -(FILED IN CASE 96-3280) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00107764 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/07/10 10:00 AM


GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S -EMERGENCY MTN TO ALLOW EMPIRE -TO POST INSURANCE POLICY AS -AN APPEAL BOND TO STAY AFFIDAVIT OF RECOGNIZANCE NOTICE OF HEARING ORDER MI COURT OF APPEALS -(DISMISSED) SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/12/10 1:30 PM


-(MTN TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -PENDING APPEAL)

CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK LMF

CLK


CLK CLK CLK CLK

J ...

l

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

..... c'"=f . ·-- .-=;c· .. . ·--·.-·-,-c-c-1


284

288 07/07/10

289 07/12/10

290

291 07/13/10 292 07/22/10 293 07/28/10

294 08/04/10

295 08/09/10

296 08/11/10

297 08/12/10

·-y I

.... - .o··-·--1


RE-NOTICE OF HEARING RESPONSE TO GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE'S EMERGENCY MTN TO -ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -PENDING APPEAL GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S REPLY -BRIEF W/AMENDED EXHIBIT IN -SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION -TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -PENDING APPEAL ORDER TO VACATE ORDERS NUNC -PRO TUNC ORDER ON THE OBJECTION &

-MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OPINION & ORDER ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO -POST INSURANCE POLICY AS AN -APPEAL BOND TO STAY -PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL MOTION HEARING B WRZESINSKI, #5068 CER -(RE: POST INS POLICY AS BOND - /TO VACATE) ; -MOTION GRANTED, PLUS -ADDITIONAL BOND FOR THE -INTEREST; ACTION IN COURT FILED COURT OF APPEALS ORDER: DENIED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED GARNISHEE DEFT-APPELLANT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE -INSURANCE COMPANY'S DELAYED -APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO -APPEAL APPEAL COURT OF APPEALS RECEIPT# 00108658 AMT $25.00 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED SUPERSEDEAS BOND REPORTER/RECORDER CERTIFICATE -OF ORDERING TRANSCRIPT ON -APPEAL (DATED 07/18/10) AMENDED REPORTER/RECORDER -CERTIFICATE OF ORDERING OF -TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL REPORTER/RECORDER CERTIFICATE -OF ORDERING TRANSCRIPT ON -APPEAL NOTICE OF FILING & AFFIDAVIT -OF MAILING APPEAL TO: COURT -OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT:07/12/10 ***MOTION -TO VACATE ORDERS NUNC PRO

CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT NDN C:F-T CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK NDN CLK NDN CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN

CLK NDN CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

''. ~. _. ' --~-- -1


298 08/13/10

299 09/07/10

300 12/13/10

301 01/24/11

302 11/21/12

303 01/02/13

304 01/28/13

305 03/03/14

306 307 07/28/14

308

309 09/15/14

310 10/22/14

311 10/27 /14

312 03/10/15 313

"r .. _ .. -·--·-----,,-=T :-;-e·; _,.. __ --_-- -·


P 001


-TUNC & EMERGENCY MOTION TO -ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY*** MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS -ORDER MI COURT OF APPEALS ORDER: -(CLAIM OF APPEAL DISMISSED) JOINDER TO RESPONSE & AMENDED -RESPONSE TO EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE BRIEF ON APPEAL PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER MI COURT OF APPEALS -DELAYED APP FOR LEAVE TO -APPEAL: DISMISSED MI COURT OF APPEALS ORDER - (REVERSE) APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT RECEIPT# 00120822 AMT $25.00 PLTFS/APPELLANTS' APPLICATION -FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE -SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-30689 RIEBSCHLEGER PROOF OF SERVICE ASSIGNEE-DEFT/APPELLANT AND -DEFT/APPELLANT'S REPLY TO -GARNISHEE/APPELLEE'S -RESPONSE TO BRIEF ON APPEAL PROOF OF SERVICE FILED FILE RETURNED FROM MI SUPREME -COURT ****************************** ****************************** MI SUPREME COURT ORDER -(COURT OF APPEALS ORDER IS -REVERSED AND CAUSE IS -REMANDED) NOTICE OF HRG FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 10/21/14 2:30 PM

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/26/15 10:00

MISCELLANOUS HEARING -(CLOSING ARGUMENTS) SCHEDULING ORDER POST REMAND -FROM SUPREME COURT AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER POST -REMAND FROM SUPREME COURT REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/24/15 10:00

MISCELLANOUS HEARING -(CLOSING ARGUMENTS) STIP/ORDER EXTENDING ALL DATES -IN SCHEDULING ORDER

AM

AM

PAGE 21 08/18/09

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK LMF

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK ALG CLK

CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK DAD CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-------r


314 07/10/15

315 07/20/15 GILL

316 317

318 07/21/15 319

320 08/14/15

321 08/17/15 322 10/01/15 323 10/15/15

324 11/09/15

325

326 11/10/15 327

328 11/16/15

329 11/20/15

-- - r , --~-~---

-'[


GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE &

-MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY'S -REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT -WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND -CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REMAND -FROM THE MI SUPREME COURT CASE REASSIGNMENT


REMOVE CALENDAR DATE'S SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/31/15 1:30 PM


REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 08/14/15 1:30 PM


RE-NOTICE OF HEARING MISCELLANOUS HEARING J MCCULLOUGH, #8464 CER ( ORAL ARGUMENTS) -ORAL ARGUMENTS HEARD; -COURT WILL RENDER A WRITTEN -OPINION; ACTION IN COURT FILED OPINION CERT OF ORDERING APPEAL TO: -COURT OF APPEALS APPEAL COURT OF APPEALS RECEIPT# 00134265 AMT $25.00 COA, STATE OF MICHIGAN -JURISDICTION CHECKLIST MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00134270 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/16/15 2:30 PM

MOTION HEARING ~PLTF MTN FOR ENTRY OF -JUDGMENT -W/POS & NTC OF HRG REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/30/15 10:00 AM

MOTION HEARING -(RE: ENTRY OF JUDGMENT) RE-NTC OF HRG APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF MARIE -HUNT, PERS REP OF ESTATE OF -EUGENE HUNT, DECEASED PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE FILED APP ON BEHALF OF MARIE HUNT, -PER REP OF THE ESTATE OF -EUGENE W HUNT, DECEASED -(BRUCE F TROGAN) NOTICE OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT


CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CJ.,K CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK NDN

CLK CLK NDN CLK NDN

CLK CLK CRT NDN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK NDN CLK DAD CLK DAD CLK CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK DAD

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

··1 ,---------

----_ ------ ~---"T --~--~~---- --- -


330 11/24/15

331 11/30/15

332

333 12/01/15 334 12/21/15

335 01/12/16

336 01/14/16

337

338 01/20/16

339

340 01/27/16

T -- - - - - - ---- -----------, ··1 ---------

- ~! ' - - - ---, - ..... ···-1


IP002

FILE 03/26/96 ADJ DT 08/18/09 CLOSE 08/18/09


MOTION HEARING -(TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO RE-POST -INSURANCE POLICY) MOTION HEARING J MCCULLOUGH, #8464 CER -MTN RE: ENTRY OF JUDGMENT: -RULINGS AS STATED ON RECORD; -BRIEFS DUE 12/21/15 AND -RESPONSE DUE 1/8/16; -EMPIRE'S MTN FOR STAY TO BE -HEARD ON 1/21/16@ 10:30; ACTION IN COURT FILED GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE INS oc•s SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO MTN FOR -ENTRY OF JUDGMENT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 01/27/16 1:30 PM

MOTION HEARING -(ENTRY OF JUDGMENT) RE-NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 01/21/16 10:30 AM

MOTION HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 01/27/16 1:31 PM

MOTION HEARING -(TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO RE-POST -INSURANCE POLICY) RE-NTC OF HEARING GARNSIHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE INS. CO'S REPLY BRIEF -IN SUPPORT_OF MOTION TO ALLOW -EMPIRE TO RE-POST INS. POLICY -OR REPOST INS. POLICY PLUS -2010 SUPERSEDEAS BOND AS AN -APPEAL BOND TO STAY EXECUTION -OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO'S -REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO -TO GARNISHOR PLTF'S TRIAL -BRIEF RE: EMPIRE'S -RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTEREST -ON JUDGMENT MOTION HEARING J MCCULLOUGH, #8464 CER (MOTION TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO RE -POST INS POLICY OR RE-POST -INS POLICY PLUS 2010 -SUPERCEDES BOND AS AN -APPEAL BOND TO STAY EXECUTION -OF ANY JUDGMENT PENDING

CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK ALG

CLK

CLK CLK CRT DAD CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK DAD CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF

CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD

CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT NDN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-----------r ---·----~


341 01/29/16

342 02/16/16 343 04/01/16

344 04/14/16

345

346

347 04/18/16

348 05/17/16

349

350 05/18/16 351 06/02/16

, T


-APPEAL(DEFT) & MOTION FOR -ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (PLTF -SARGENT TRUCKING)) -MATTERS NEED FURTHER -BRIEFING; -COURT TO PREPARE NEW -SCHEDULING ORDER; -RULINGS ON THE -RECORD AS TO SOME MATTERS; -HRG 5/4/16@ 1:30PM; ACTION IN COURT FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 05/04/16 1:30 PM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING ( ORAL ARGUMENTS) SCHEDULING ORDER FOLLOWING -HEARING OF JAN 27, 2016 ORDER MI COURT OF APPEALS GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE AND -MARINE INSURANCE CO RESPONSE -BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO -GARNISHOR PLTFS SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN SUPPORT FOR -ASSIGNEMNT RE: ISSUES THE -COURT REQUESTED THE PARTIES -ADDRESS WITH RESPECT TO -GARNISHOR PLTFS PENDING -MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE -5/4/16 MOTION HEARING -IS RESCHEDULED TO THURSDAY -5/12/16@ 9:45AM FOR THE -REASON THE COURT IS NOT -AVAILABLE; CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 05/12/16 9:45 AM

MOTION HEARING -(ORAL ARGUMENTS) REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 05/04/16 1:30 PM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING GARNISHOR PLTFS REPLY TO -EMPIRES RESPONSE TO -SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON -JUDGMENT INTEREST NOTICE OF HRG FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/02/16 10:30 AM

MOTION HEARING -(MOTION TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO -RE-POST INSURANCE POLICY) NOTICE OF HRG FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/02/16 10:31 AM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING -(MOTION RE:PREJUDGMENT AND -POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST) PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MISCELLANOUS HEARING J MCCULLOUGH, #8464 CER -ORAL ARGUMENTS;

CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK NDN CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK ALG CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT ALG CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK ALG CLK

CLK CLK ALG

CLK ALG CLK CLK CLK CLK ALG CLK

CLK CLK CLK ALG CLK

CLK CLK CLK ALG CRT ALG CRT CRT

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--r -------~-- -


352 353 354 06/06/16

--1 -~--------- -----------------, ------~---

- . ,-.- ,_c·:-,-,-1 --·-r

CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 PAGE 25 08/18/09 FILE 03/26/96 ADJ DT 08/18/09 CLOSE

-ARGUMENTS HEARD; CRT -COURT SIGNS 3 JUDGMENTS CRT -FINAL; CRT -AS TO ISSUE OF APPROPRIATE CRT -BOND-COURT FINDS EMPIRE TO CRT -POST A BOND@ 110% OF CRT -JUDGMENTS; CRT ACTION IN COURT FILED CLK ALG ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT CLK ALG NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT CLK ALG

END OF SUMMARY ............................. .

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

· .. - ·-·-·-·-···-·T ---,----;--_--:=----::--:-:c-;;:,- _ .... ,, - -1 .... _ .. ·


BAY COUNTY

P 001 HUBER,BRANDON,JAMES ATY:HARRISON,JOSEPH P-30709 989-799-7609


TPOOl DRIELICK,COREY,

FILE 03/31/97 ~..DJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09 JDF SCAO:SEC CLINE 03

VS D 001 DRIELICK,COREY,A. ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J P-41337 989-249-4900 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 04/23/97 ANS

D 002 DRIELICK,ROGER, DEA-ROGER DRIELICK TRUCKING,,

ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J P-41337 989-249-4900 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 04/23/97 ANS

D 003 GREAT LAKES CARRIERS CORP.,, ATY:CARBAJAL,DAVID, 10/29/97 P-41130 989-790-0960 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 04/15/98 ANS

D 004 GREAT LAKES LOGISTICS INC.,, RES-BATESON,JAMIE,J.

440 N. HURON ROAD LINWOOD MI 48634 ATY:PURCELL,MILES J 10/29/97 P-19136 989-225-2435 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 01/08/98 ANS

D 005 MERMAID TRANSPORTATION INC.,, 04/07/98

DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS

D 006 SARGENT TRUCKING,, ATY:HICKEY,STEVEN M 04/07/98 P-33142 248-247-3300 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 01/06/10 APP

VS TDOOl GREAT LAKES CARRIERS INC.,, RES-BATESON,JAMIE,J.

440 N. HURON ROAD LINWOOD MI 48634

ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J 05/01/97 ATY:CARBAJAL,DAVID, 05/01/97 P-41337 989-249-4900


TP002 DRIELICK,ROGER, DEA-ROGER DRIELICK TRUCKING,,

ATY:SHINNERS,JOHN J 05/01/97 P-41337 989-249-4900 SERVICE/ANS 03/09/05 ROS

IPOOl CARBAJAL,DAVID, P.O. BOX 1966

P-41130 989-790-0960 DISPOSITION 08/14/09 SET OPI SERVICE/ANS 04/15/98 ANS

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-! ----- . - • ·--- ~--=. ·1

CLOSED CJO CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 06/10/16 97-003238-NI JUDGE GILL FILE 03/31/97 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE

SAGINAW MI 48605-1966 ATY:CARBAJAL 1 DAVID, 04/29/10 P-41130 989-790-0960

IP002 EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS, 1

ATY:ZACHARY,NICOLET 06/22/15 P-49522 248-641-7600

Num Date Judge

1 04/11/97 CAPRATHE

4 04/23/97

5

6 05/01/97 2 05/02/97

3

7 05/23/97

8 05/30/97 9 07/01/97

10 07/15/97

11

12 07/16/97

13 07/21/97

14 07/22/97 15 07/31/97

16 08/04/97

17 08/05/97 18 08/18/97

19 09/18/97

256 10/07/97

Actions, Judgments 1 Case Notes

Chg/Pty Event Description/Comments

D 001

D 002

TPOOl D 001

D 002

TDOOl TDOOl

TDOOl

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT RECEIPT# 00056473 AMT $150.00 -JURY DEMAND FILED ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-41337 SHINNERS SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/24/97 8:30 AM


ANSWER FILED ATTORNEY: P-41337 SHINNERS

3RD PARTY SUMMONS & COMPLAINT RETURN OF SERVICE -(4-26-97) RETURN OF SERVICE -(4-26-97) ORDER EXTENDING SUMMONS - (8/22/97) SECOND 3RD PARTY SUMMONS RETURN OF SERVICE ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-41130 CARBAJAL JURY DEMAND FILED RECEIPT# 00060558 AMT $60.00 PROOF OF SERVICE NOTICE OF FILING AMENDED -COMPLAINT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED -COMPLAINT RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND PROOF OF SERVICE REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PL. HUNT (96-3280) ANSWER TO -REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ANSWER TO 1ST AMENDED -COMPLAINT NOTICE TO APPEAR; 9/08/97 ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR -ADMISSIONS PRETRIAL ORDER {PRETRIAL -ADJOURNED) *COPY OF PRETRIAL HEARING NOT.

FILED IN 96-4090-NI IN ERROR PRETRIAL WAS RESCHEDULED UNDER THIS CASE NUMBER

PAGE 2 08/18/09

CLK PJM

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK

CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PJM CLK CLK PJM CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK LML CLK CLK CLK

-'

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

- ,-;._,T . --------- ------ -----.---.--,--~1


21 10/15/97

22 10/21/97

24 10/28/97

23 10/29/97

25

26

27 10/31/97

20 11/04/97

28 29 30 11/07/97

31 11/10/97

36 32 11/12/97

33 11/25/97 34

35 12/01/97

37 12/09/97

38

39 12/18/97

40 01/08/98

254 01/12/98 41 01/20/98

-- -- l -i ;----:--:---.-·· -.· .. . ----~ r


D 003

D 003 P 001

D 004

D 004

FILE 03/31/97 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

RESPONSE TO GREAT LAKES -CARRIER REQUEST FOR -ADMISSIONS PROOF OF SERVICE * NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS

- FOR LACK OF PROGRESS REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 11/24/97 8:30 AM


* LETTER FROM COUNSEL * LETTER TP COUNSEL * PLEADINGS TRANFERRED FROM -FILE 96-4090-NI-C TO THIS -FILE NOTICE OF FILING SECOND -AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT RETURN OF SERVICE RETURN OF SERVICE: R. DREILICK ANSWER TO (HUBER) 2ND AMENDED -COMPLAINT: GREAT LAKES PROOF OF SERVICE ANSWER TO (HUNT) 2ND AMENDED -COMPLAINT: GREAT LAKES PROOF OF SERVICE NOTICE SENT FOR: 11/10/97 11:30 AM


-PLEASE NOTE THIS NOTICE WAS -ORIGINALLY SET ON FILE -96-4090-NI WHICH IS CLOSED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED RE-ASSIGNED PRO-PER TO CARBAJA ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-30709 HARRISON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -(PL. LUCZAK; 96-3238-NI-C) PRE-TRIAL HEARING SECOND AMENDED SUMMONS & -COMPLAINT PRETRIAL, SCHEDULING & ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

ORDERED GREAT LAKES CARRIERS ANSWER TO -LUCZAK 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT DEF. DRIELICK ANSWER TO 2ND -AMENDED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-19136 PURCELL PROOF OF SERVICE PL. HUBER WITNESS LIST PL. HUBER EXHIBIT LIST ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-19136 PURCELL PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PL. ANSWER TO GREAT LAKES

CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK LML CLK CLK PSN

CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK TLP

CLK CLK CLK CLK TLP CLK PSN CLK SMR CLK CLK PSN CLK CRT SEW CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK LML CLK PSN

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

i

cc! .... · __ ...


42 02/12/98

255 03/13/98

43 04/07/98

44 04/15/98

45

46 06/09/98

47 06/24/98

48 07/15/98

49 07/28/98

50 08/10/98

51 08/17/98

52 08/21/98

53 08/24/98

54 08/27/98 55 09/21/98

-i ----------- -T

- '·f . - . -- . _. ~-- - =--- --,


D 003

TDOOl

FILE 03/31/97 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

-LOGISTICS NEW MATTERS &/OR -AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WITNESS LIST: GREAT LAKES EXHIBIT LIST: GREAT LAKES PROOF OF SERVICE -STIP TO ADD PARTIES DEFT'S -ORDER TO ADD PARTIES DEFT'S PL. THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - & SUMMONS PROOF OF SERVICE ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-41130 CARBAJAL ANSWER FILED

ATTORNEY: P-41130 CARBAJAL PROOF OF SERVICE PL. HUBER'S 1ST SUPPLEMENTAL -WITNESS LIST PLTF HUBER'S RESPONSE TO -SARGENT'S NEW MATTER NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION OF -NON PARTY PROOF OF SERVICE EXPERT WITNESS LIST; GREAT -LAKES CARRIERS PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00009827 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 08/24/98 9:00 AM


GREAT LAKES'S MOTION TO SEEK -ALLOCATION OF FAULT ON NON -PARTY NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE GREAT LAKES AMENDED WITNESS -LIST PROOF OF SERVICE STIPULATION & ORDER TO EXTEND -DISCOVERY DEADLINES PL. HUBER'S RESPONSE TO MOTION -TO SEEK ALLOCATION OF FAULT MOTION HEARING -TO SEEK ALLOCATION OF FAULT -ON NON PARTY----ADJOURNED -FOR AMENDED PT---MR. HYVONEN -HAS 30 DAYS TO NAME WITNESSES -DISCOVERY CUT OFF 120 DAYS -MEDIATION NOT TO BE SET UNTIL -AFTER 12/24/98 ACTION IN COURT FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 10/19/98 2:30 PM

MOTION HEARING. HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

-(GREAT LAKES MOTION TO SEEK -ALLOCATION OF FAULT ON NONPTY RE-NTC. OF HEARING

CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK LML CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CRT SMR CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK SMR CLK SMR

CLK CLK CLK

: I : i :-1

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--r


56 10/19/98

57

58 10/20/98 59 10/27/98

60 10/30/98 61 11/17/98

62 12/14/98 63 02/09/99 64 06/25/99 65 08/06/99

66 08/16/99

67 09/22/99

68 09/29/99

69

70

71

72

73 74 11/08/99

75 11/09/99

76 12/15/99

---------- -----~---r

.. ,. - __ , T -- - . --- ----.- .... •"<""c"f


PROOF OF SERVICE GREAT LAKES' 2ND AMENDED -WITNESS LIST PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION HEARING -GREAT LAKES MOTION TO -ALLOCATE FAULT -RULING ON RECORD ACTION IN COURT FILED NOTICE OF FAULT PROOF OF SERVICE NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT ORDER PERMITTING FILING OF -NOTICE OF FAULT OF NON PARTY PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MEDIATION NOTICE: 4/15/99 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EX-PARTE -ORDER AFFIDAVIT OF MILES PURCELL PROTECTIVE ORDER MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00024793 AMT $20.00 -{FEE PAID FOR EMERGENCY MOT.) RETURN FROM MEDIATION -MEDIATION PAPERS FILED -MEDIATION REJECTED NOTICE SENT FOR: 01/14/00 8:30 AM






-SEE ALSO 96-3280 HUNT -VDRIELICK & 96-3328 LUCZAK -VDRIELICK SET ON THESE SAME DATES. PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: ALL MOTIONS -SCHEDULED FOR 11/08/99 ARE -ADJOURNED/RESET. CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 12/08/99 1:30 PM


NON-SERVICE DISMISSAL -(D-5) MERMAID TRANSPORTATION

CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CRT SMR CRT CRT CRT CLK SMR CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR


CLK LML

CLK LML

CLK LML

CLK LML

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LML CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

CLK PSN CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

._- - . "---- ... "'""T·


77

78

79 12/27/99 80 81 01/03/oo· 82 01/06/00

83

84 01/27/00

85

86 02/02/00 88 02/10/00

87 02/14/00 89 02/15/00 90

91

92 02/18/00

. ___ ·- f - . . --" -· ·. -' -- ---- -·' ~--c-•,·s·r


D 005

D 006

D 004

D 004

FILE 03/31/97 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

-(D-6) SARGENT TRUCKING MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY CLERK DISMISSED MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY CLERK DISMISSED NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ORDER OF DISMISSAL -(GREAT LAKES LOGISTICS, INC.) MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE DISMISSED MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00031714 AMT $20.00 sEr NEXT DATE FOR: 02/23/00 9:00 AM


GREAT LAKES MOT. IN LIMINE NTC. OF HEARING GREAT LAKES TRIAL BRIEF GREAT LAKES REQUESTED VOIR -DIRE PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY; DATE SET FOR -TRIAL MANAGMENT CONFERENCE. -COURT MET WITH COUNSEL. -TRIAL MANAGMENT CONFERENCE -WILL BE HELD ON 2/23/00 TRIAL - DATE . ALL ATTORNEYS ARE TO -BE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION -OF MR. CHEATHAM, WHO MAY SEND -A SUBSTITUTE. -SOMEONE WITH AUTHORITY TO -SETTLE THE CASE MUST BE -PRESENT FOR EACH PARTY EITHER -IN PERSON, OR IF OUT OF STATE -BY PHONE. GREAT LAKES -CARRIER IS REQUIRED TO BE -PRESENT. THIS CASE IS TO GO -TO TRIAL ON 4/04/00 WITH FILE - 9 6 - 3 3 2 8 - NI. -COUNSEL ARE TO ADVISE THE -COURT AS TO HOW LONG THE -TRIAL WILL TAKE ON 2/23/00. -2/14/00 MOTION TO SET TRIAL -SCHEDULE IS ADJOURNED. PROOF OF SERVICE FILED CASE ACTIVITY REPORT REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 02/23/00 9:00 AM



REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 03/14/00 9:00 AM

CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CRT PSN CRT CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK SMR CLK CLK CLK CLK SMR CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK SMR CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK PSN

CLK PSN

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-·-1 . - . - -,-- r -~. . - _-_. -


93 02/24/00

94 02/25/00

95 03/07/00

96 03/14/00

97 98

99

100

101 03/20/00 102 04/24/00

103

104 04/26/00 105 12/04/00

106 01/10/01

107 01/22/01 108 01/23/01 109 01/25/01

·110 02/23/01

111 02/28/01

------1


D 001

D 002

999



MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: PARTIES HAVE -SETTLED CASE. -SETTLEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON -RECORD ON 3/14/00. CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/14/00 8:30 AM


-(SETTLEMENT ON RECORD) SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/14/00 8:31 AM


-(CONSENT JUDGMENT) NTC. OF HEARING PL. CONSENT JUDGMENT -(C. DRIELICK & R. DRIELICK) REMOVE CALENDAR DATES MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE SETTLED MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE SETTLED MOTION HEARING -MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT: -SETTLEMENT ON RECORD. -ORDERS SIGNED BY THE COURT. ACTION IN COURT FILED STIPULATION & ORDER: DISMISS -GREAT LAKES CARRIERS & GREAT -LAKES LOGISTICS DOMESTIC/GENERAL CIVIL JGMT ORDER

* ALL PARTIES DISPOSED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED· GARNISHMENT/DISCOVERY RECEIPT# 00046498 AMT $15.00 REQUEST/WRIT FOR GARNISHMENT

PROOF OF SERVICE; GARNISHMENT GARNISHEE DISCLOSURE PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED MISCELLANOUS HEARING

-CASE ACTIVITY: COURT & -COUNSEL MET IN CHAMBERS. -CASE STATUS REVIEW HAS BEEN -SCHEDULED. -MR. CARBAJAL WILL ADVISE THE -OCURT AS TO THE STATUS OF TH -CASE OR THE GARNISHMENT WILL -BE DISMISSED.

CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/20/01 1:30 PM


-----r -------~-~

PAGE 7 08/18/09

CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

CLK CLK SMR

CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK TKD

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK TKD CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

- r I ., l

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

·r


112 04/20/01

113 114 06/06/01

115 116 08/01/01 257 117 08/06/01

118 08/20/01

258 119 08/24/01

120 1_0/05/01

121 10/08/01

122 11/08/01

123 12/21/01

124 01/02/02 125

-- --- ---------~r

.-.··r , ·. ··- .. ,-.. -1 . .. . ...... .


- {STATUS REVIEW) MISCELLANOUS HEARING -COURT HAD A CONFERENCE WITH -MR. CARBAJAL {IN PERSON) AND -MR. ANDERSON (BY PHONE) ON -4/12/01. PURSUANT TO THE -PHONE CONFERENCE, THE COURT -WILL ADJOURN THE REVIEW -SCHEDULED FOR TODAY TO -6/15/01. IF THIS MATTER HAS -NOT BEEN RESOLVED, OR MOTION -SCHEDULED, THE ATTORNEYS & -PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR AT THIS -TIME TO ADVISE THE COURT OF -THE STATUS OF THE CASE. - {SEE: 96-3280) CASE ACTIVITY REPORT JOINT ANSWER TO EMPIRE'S -MOTION TO QUASH WRITS OF -GARNISHMENT BRIEF IN SUPPORT NTC OF PRESENTMENT PROOF OF SERVICE FILED OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF -PRESENTMENT (SEE: 96-3280-NI) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00055576 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/24/01 1:30 PM


MOTION TO SETTLE ORDER NTC. OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER * TRANSCRIPT: 7/27/2001 ** MOTION TO QUASH WRITS OF

GARNISHMENT - SEE 96-3280 ORDER {DENYING MOTION TO -QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT) RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO EMPIRE -FIRE & MARINE'S MOTION TO -QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT PROOF OF SERVICE EMPIRE'S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION -TO QUASH WRITS OF GARNISHMENT - (SEE: 96-3280) ORDER DENYING EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE'S MOTION TO QUASH THE -WRITS OF GARNISHMENT RESPONDENTS OBJECTION & -RESPONSE TO MOTION NTC OF HRG PROOF OF SERVICE RE-NOTICE OF HEARING (96-3280) SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/04/02 11:00 AM

CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK TKD CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK TKD CLK LML CLK PSN CL,K CLK SMR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK LML CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PJM CLK CLK CLK CLK LML CLK LML

"I

!

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


259 126 01/09/02

127 02/11/02

128 08/07/02

129

130 09/20/02

131 09/25/02 132 10/07/02

133 10/17/02

134 10/29/02

135 136

137

138 11/04/02

139 11/18/02 140

----r

• -----;__c--:--0·-7



PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ORDER DENYING EMPIRE'S MOTION -FOR RECONSIDERATION SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT -OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF -JUDGMENT MISCELLANOUS HEARING -CASE ACTIVITY: CASE IS SET -FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE -MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/20/02 1:30 PM


-(ORAL ARGUMENT) MOTION HEARING -MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - ( ORAL ARGUMENT) : GRANTED. -JUDGMENT TO ENTER AGAINST -EMPIRE IN THE AMOUNT OF -POLICY LIMITS - $750,000.00 -PLUS STATUTORY FEES & COSTS. ACTION IN COURT FILED NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00065671 AMT $20.00 OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF -PRESENTMENT OF PROPOSED -JUDGMENT MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00065912 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: ll/18/02 3:30 PM






-(MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER)

PAGE 9 08/18/09

CLK LML CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK


CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK


CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-----··r

-1 ,~-----·.··. ·r . ----.,,_-._. - -'----- , •. ,- ·-·1 . -. · .. --- ,,,._ .... -- . ---· ----·1


142 11/19/02

143 12/16/02

158 12/18/02 144 12/19/02 145 01/08/03

146 01/17/03 147 01/22/03 148 01/30/03

151 02/03/03

149 02/ 04/03

150

152 02/06/03

153 02/19/03

154 03/13/03

155 03/28/03

156 05/13/03 157·05/29/03

159 08/04/03


P 001

FILE 03/31/97 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00066434 AMT $20.00 AMENDED MOTION TO SETTLE -JUDGMENTS RE-NOTICE OF HEARING; 12/16/02 PROOF OF SERVICE MISCELLANOUS HEARING -ENTRY OF ORDER - GRANTED; -INTEREST FROM POINT OF -GARNISHMENT; -JMT. TO BE ENTERED UPON -PROPER PRESENTATION; ACTION IN COURT FILED ACTION IN COURT FILED NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT PROOF OF SERVICE JUDGMENT PROOF OF SERVICE FILED APPEARANCE -J. HARRISON FOR -B. HUBER REPORTER CERTIFICATE ORDERING -TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL APPEAL COURT OF APPEALS RECEIPT# 00068284 AMT $2·5. 00 APPEARANCE -D. CARBAJAL AS CO-COUNSEL FOR -APPELLEES APPEARANCE -P. RIEBSCHLEGER FOR APPELLEES -LUCZAK & LUCZAK MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00068738 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/21/03 11:30 AM


MTN. TO ACCEPT GARNISHEE DEFT. - INSURANCE POLICY. AS BOND NTC. OF HRG. RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO MOTION -TO ACCEPT GARNISHEE DEF. -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN -APPEAL BOND & TO STAY -PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/04/03 11:00 AM


-(MTN. TO ACCEPT INSURANCE --POLICY AS BOND)

RE-NTC. OF HRG. AFFIDAVIT OF RECOGNIZANCE ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE DEF. -EMPIRE'S MOTION TO POST IT'S -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND & TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -PENDING THE APPEAL

**

CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK LLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK KKM

CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK KKM

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


160

161 11/05/04

162 11/29/04

163

164 11/30/04 165 12/02/04

166

167 12/08/04

168

169

170

171

--------- ------r -------~-~

-1 ·----··· .. - , r - - - -.····1 .-'"c.:c--- ·1


FILE SENT TO COURT OF APPEALS - LANSING (NO TRANSCRIPTS)

AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING -TRANSCRIPT & AFFIDAVIT OF -MAILING MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00081257 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/29/04 9:00 AM


DEFT. GREAT LAKES CARRIERS -CORP. MTN. TO STRIKE DEFT'S -RELIANCE ON A JURY DEMAND NTC. OF HRG. MI COURT OF APPEALS -REMITTITUR OF RECORD -****RETURNED**** MI COURT OF APPEALS -UNPUBLISHED OPINION -**** AFFIRMED IN PART, -REVERSED IN PART AND -REMANDED**** MOTION HEARING -(1.TO STRIKE GARNISHEE DEFT, -2. TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND); -1. & 2. UNDER ADVISEMENT; -MR. ANDERSON 1 S RESPONSE NOT -REC'D BY THE COURT; -MR. CARBAJAL TO FILE RESPONSE -BRIEF W/IN 2 WEEKS; -MR. ANDERSON HAS ONE WEEK -TO RESPOND THEREAFTER; ACTION IN COURT FILED ORDER REOPENING CASE COURT OF APPEALS/SUPREME COURT -CASE RETURN REPORT GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE -AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY -RESPONSE TO MTN. TO STRIKE -RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND NOTICE SENT FOR: 03/02/05 8:30 AM




NOTICE SENT FOR: 05/17/05 9:00 AM JURY TRIAL HON. WILL!AM J. CAPRATHE

*PREVIOUS NOTICE SET IN ERROR, PLEASE DISREGARD, THIS ONE IS CORRECT* PROOF OF SERVICE FILED

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK MKR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT MKR CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK MKR CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK LLK

CLK LLK

CLK LLK

CLK LLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK LLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

---~- r


172

173 12/15/04

174 01/20/05

175 02/01/05

176 02/16/05

177

178 02/22/05

179 02/23/05

180 02/28/05

------r --------~~-- -


GARNISHOR 1 S REPLY TO GARNISHEE -DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE -INSURANCE COMPANY'S RESPONSE -TO MTN. TO STRIKE RELIANCE ON -JURY DEMAND GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE -AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY -RESPONSE TO GARNISHOR'S REPLY -TO GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE -FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE -COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO MTN. -TO STRIKE RELIANCE ON JURY -DEMAND ORDER (ON MTN. TO STRIKE -GARNISHEE DEFT'S RELIANCE ON -JURY DEMAND - GRANTED) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00082299 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/22/05 9:00 AM


MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NOTICE OF HEARING RESPONSE TO GARNSHEE DEF. -MOTION FOR DISCOVER MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00082536 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 02/22/05 9:01 AM


MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER -DENYING DISCOVERY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF GARNISHOR -MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER & -REPLY TO GARNISHEE DEF. -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE MOTION -FOR DISCOVERY NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE MOTION HEARING -(EMPIRE) MOTION FOR DISCOVERY -ORAL ARGUMENT ON RECORD. -OPINION ISSUED BY COURT IN -JANUARY WAS NOT SENT TO -COUNSEL. -PHONE STATUS CONFERENCE TO -BE INITIATED BY MR. CARBJAL. -SET FOR 3/28/05. ACTION IN COURT FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/28/05 1:30 PM


-(PHONE STATUS CONFERENCE) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER UNDER - 7 DAY RULE - (ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE -DEF. EMPIRE MOTION FOR

PAGE 12 08/18/09

CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK MKR CLK CLK CLK PSN

CLK


CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT PSN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK PSN CLK

CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

------, -----~-~-- -

-'-'-T ' !


181 03/01/05

182 03/09/05

183 03/10/05

184 03/15/05

185 03/21/05

186 03/30/05 187 188

189

190

191 03/31/05

192 06/20/05

193 07/11/05 194

195 08/04/05

196 08/08/05

l 'T -- - ----- - ,--,-1


999

FILE 03/31/97 ADJ DT 08/14/09 CLOSE 08/18/09

- DISCOVERY) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00082703 AMT $20.00 JOINDER IN MOTION FOR -PROTECTIVE ORDER DENYING -DISCOVERY RETURN OF SERVICE * NO SUMMONS - CASE REOPENED ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE DEF. -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. -CO. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY GARNISHEE DEFENDANT EMPIRE -FIRE & MARINE RESPONSE TO -MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER -DENYING DISCOVERY * TRANSCRIPT: 11/29/04 ** MOTION TO STRIKE JURY

- DEMAND (SEE: 96-3280-NI-C)

* TRANSCRIPT: 2/22/05 ** MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

-PROTECTIVE ORDER (SEE: 96-3280-NI-C)

STATUS REPORT REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 10/17/05 9:30 AM



SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/22/os 9:00 AM NON-JURY TRIAL HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE



- & TO ADJOURN TRIAL NOTICE OF HEARING RE-NOTICE OF HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 08/01/05 3:30 PM


SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/09/05 8:30 AM MOTION TO COMPEL HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

- (DEFT. EMPIRE) RE-NTC. OF HRG. MI CT OF APPEALS ORDER DENYING -APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

CLK CLK PSN

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK PSN CLK PSN

CLK PSN

CLK PSN


CLK


CLK KKM

CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-, 1·-:----:-c··---·.-~ _. I


197 09/21/05 198

199

200 11/14/05

201 12/19/05

202 01/05/06

203 01/30/06

204 04/18/06

205 04/28/06

206 05/15/06

207

208 06/08/06

209 06/13/06

210 06/15/06

211 06/23/06

·---r - -,- - . ·- "--c--C"f -' ----------- ,--. -1


-APPEAL REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 04/06/06 1:30 PM



STATUS ORDER MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00085918 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 12/12/os 9:00 AM


GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE FIRE -AND MARINE INS. CO. MTN. TO -COMPEL DEFT/CROSS-DEFT. GREAT -LAKES CARRIERS CORP. REPSONSE NTC. OF HRG. DEFT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS -AS TO SARGENT TRUCKING DEFT. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS -AS TO GREAT LAKES CARRIERS DEFT. GREAT LAKES ANS. TO -GARNISHEE REQUEST TO ADMIT MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00086767 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 03/20/06 1:30 PM


GARNISHEE MTN. TO DEEM REQUEST -ADMITTED NTC. OF HRG. STIPULATON & ORDER -(RE: TRIAL BRIEFS) GARNISHEE DEFENDANT EMPIRE'S -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT -WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND -LEGAL AUTHORITY - (SEE: 96-3280-NI-C} TRIAL BRIEF PROOF OF SERVICE TRIAL BRIEF ON ISSUE OF -LEGALITY & ENFORCEABLITY OF -EXCLUSIONS IN THE EMPIRE -POLICY OF INSURANCE - ( SEE : 9 6 - 3 2 8 0 ) STIP/ORDER RE: ORDER ENTERED -ON 4/17/06 GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE REPLY -BRIEF TO GARNISHEE PLTF'S -ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY AND -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PROOF OF SERVICE FILED GARNISHEE PLTF'S SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF AND CORRECTIONS GARNISHEE DEFT. EMPIRE'S

-, I

PAGE 14 08/18/09

CLK CLK KKM CLK KKM

CLK KKM

CLK CLK MKR

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK KKM

CLK

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSN CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK CLK MKW

f ,------

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


212 06/30/06

213 10/10/06 214

215 10/11/06

216 10/16/06

217 10/19/06

218 10/26/06

221 05/24/07

219 06/28/07

220 06/29/07

222

223 09/13/07

224 09/21/07

225 09/24/07

'/ ,----------


999


-RESPONSE BRIEF TO GARNISHEE -PLTF'S TRIAL BRIEF RE: THE -LEGALITY AND ENFORCEABILITY -OF EXCLUSIONS IN THE EMPIRE -POLICY OF INSURANCE GARNISHEE DEFT. REPLY BRIEF TO -PLTF. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF INTENT TO DISMISS-NO PROGRESS NOTICE SENT FOR: 11/20/06 8:00 AM


REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 11/20/06 8:00 AM LACK OF PROGRESS HEARING HON. WILLIAM J. CAPRATHE

*** 10/11/06 PER LAW CLERK, -REMOVE LOP AS COURT IS IN -PROCESS OF WRITING OPINION*** LETTER FROM ATTY. (RE: LACK -OF PROGRESS) REQUEST/ORDER TO REMOVE FROM -LACK OF PROGRESS DOCKET REQUEST/ORDER TO REMOVE FROM -LACK OF PROGRESS DOCKET NOTICE OF HRG FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/29/07 1:30 PM


-ORAL ARGUMENT MISCELLANEOUS ACTION BY JUDGE -DUE TO THE UNAVAILABILITY OF -MR CHEATHAM, THE ORAL -ARGUMENT IS RESCHEDULED TO: -FRIDAY, 9/21/07@ 2:00 P.M.; CASE ACTIVITY REPORT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 09/21/07 2:00 PM


-(ORAL ARGUMENT) REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 06/29/07 1:30 PM


GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S -SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE BRIEF -TO GARNISHEE PLTF'S TRIAL -BRIEF RE: THE LEGALITY AND -ENFORCEABILITY OF -EXCLUSIONS IN THE EMPIRE -POLICY OF INSURANCE MISCELLANOUS HEARING UNDER ADVISEMENT - RETURNED 8/14/09 -(ORAL ARGUMENT); -ON REMAND FROM COURT OF -APPEALS; -COURT TO ISSUE WRITTEN -OPINION; ACTION IN COURT FILED

•••• C • ·• -., r

PAGE 15 j

08/18/09

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK KKM CLK CLK MKW CLK MKW

CLK MKW

CLK CLK CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK MKW CLK CLK PSL CLK

CLK CRT DAD CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK DAD CLK

CLK CLK PSL

CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT LMF CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK LMF

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--,---, -- ---c.---cc~


226 227 12/08/08

228 12/15/08

229 12/19/08

230 08/14/09

232

231 08/18/09

233 10/05/09

234 10/26/09

235

236 10/28/09

237 11/16/09

238 11/17/09

239 11/25/09

-----r

~1 - r .. -------·- .. -,-,--,,,---1


D. DYER #0122 - ON THE RECORD GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S 2ND -SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF W/LEGAL -AUTHORITY SUPPORTING ITS -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PLTFS REPLY TO GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO -2ND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, -AUTHORITY & PROPOSED FINDINGS -OF FACT PROOF OF SERVICE PLTF'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO -THEIR REPLY TO GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. -2ND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, -AUTHORITY & PROPOSED FINDINGS -OF FACT PROOF OF SERVICE MISCELLANOUS HEARING REMOVE FROM UNDER ADVISEMENT

999 OPINION SETTLED DOMESTIC/GENERAL CIVIL JGMT ORDER OPINION -(PER SARA DOYLE, OPINION -DOES NOT CLOSE CASE) **-(10/19/09 - PER SARA DOYLE, -OPINION CLOSES CASE) ORDER RE-ISSUING OPINION &

-ORDER W/POS MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00104941 AMT $20.00 GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE AND -MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY'S -MTN FOR RECONSIDERATION OF -OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING -OBJECTION TO GARNISHMENT AND -FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO -WHETHER OPINION & ORDER WAS -FINAL ORDER DISPOSING OF ALL -CLAIMS BRIEF IN SUPPORT NOTICE OF HEARING (NO HEARING -DATE) DEF. MERMAID TRANSPORTATION -MAIL RETURNED

- (SEE: 96-3280) RESPONSE TO EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE MOTION FOR -RECONSIDERATION OF OPINION BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR -RECONSIDERATION PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE FROM -PLAINTIFF GARNISHEE PLAINTIFF REPLY TO

CLK LMF CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NMP CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT PSL CRT CRT PSL CRT CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK LMF

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK PSL

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

• ~ 0 --,.cc-cc--c~l .·. . . . .. _. I

·-1 '--, ... _.,


240 12/02/09

241 01/06/10

242 04/12/10

243 04/26/10

244 04/27/10

245 04/29/10

246 05/05/10

247 248 05/07/10

249 05/24/10

250 05/27 /.10

251 06/01/10

252 06/04/10

--- - -----------r

-·r


D 006

p 001

p 001


-GARNISHEE DEFENDANT MOTION -FOR RECONSIDERATION PROOF OF SERVICE GARNISHEE DEFENDANT EMPIRE -FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO -RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO -MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION & -REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF -MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF -OPINION & ORDER OVERRULING -OBJECTION TO GARNISHMENT &' -FOR CLARIFICATION AST TO -OPINION WAS FINAL ORDER APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-33142 HICKEY JOINDER.OF DEFENDANT -SARGENT TRUCKING, INC. PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER ON THE OBJECTION & MTN -FOR RECONSIDERATION GARNISHEE DEFT-APPELLANT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE -INSURANCE CO'S CLAIM OF -APPEAL REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE OF -ORDERING TRANSCRIPT -APPEARANCE (CO-COUNSEL -CARBAJAL) APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-30709 HARRISON PROOF OF SERVICE FILED REPORTER/RECORDER CERTIFICATE -OF ORDERING OF TRANSCRIPT ON -APPEAL TRANSCRIPT: 9/21/07 ***ORAL ARGUMENT*** -(FILED IN CASE 96-3280) MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00107763 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/07/10 10:00 AM


GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S -EMERGENCY MTN TO ALLOW EMPIRE -TO POST INSURANCE POLICY AS -AN APPEAL BOND TO STAY AFFIDAVIT OF RECOGNIZANCE NOTICE OF HEARING ORDER MI COURT OF APPEALS -(DISMISSED) SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/12/10 1:30 PM


-(MTN TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -PENDING APPEAL)

PAGE 17 08/18/09

CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK DAD CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK LMF

CLK


CLK CLK CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- --------------------1 -----~--~--- I -

·-·r ----. --- ~- ~------ !


253

260 07/07/10

261 07/12/10

262

263 07/13/10 264 07/22/10 265 07 /28/10

266 08/04/10

267 08/09/10

268 08/11/io

269 08/12/10


RE-NOTICE OF HEARING RESPONSE TO GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE'S EMERGENCY MTN TO -ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -PENDING APPEAL GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE'S REPLY -BRIEF W/AMENDED EXHIBIT IN -SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION -TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS -PENDING APPEAL ORDER TO VACATE ORDERS NUNC -PRO TUNC ORDER ON THE OBJECTION & -MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OPINION & ORDER ORDER GRANTING GARNISHEE DEFT -EMPIRE'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO -POST INSURANCE POLICY AS AN -APPEAL BOND TO STAY -PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL MOTION HEARING B WRZESINSKI, #5068 CER -(RE: POST INS POLICY AS BOND -/TO VACATE); -MOTION GRANTED, PLUS -ADDITIONAL BOND FOR THE -INTEREST; ACTION IN COURT FILED COURT OF APPEALS ORDER: DENIED PROOF OF SERVICE FILED GARNISHEE DEFT-APPELLANT -EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE -INSURANCE COMPANY'S DELAYED -APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO -APPEAL APPEAL COURT OF APPEALS RECEIPT# 00108657 AMT $25.00 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED SUPERSEDEAS BOND REPORTER/RECORDER CERTIFICATE -OF ORDERING TRANSCRIPT ON -APPEAL (DATED 07/18/10) AMENDED REPORTER/RECORDER -CERTIFICATE OF ORDERING OF -TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL REPORTER/RECORDER CERTIFICATE -OF ORDERING TRANSCRIPT ON -APPEAL NOTICE OF FILING & AFFIDAVIT -OF MAILING APPEAL TO: COURT -OF APPEALS TRANSCRIPT:07/12/10 ***MOTION -TO VACATE ORDERS NUNC PRO

----r -----~-

. - --·. -- --.--- i - . ·- . -

PAGE 18 08/18/09

CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CRT NDN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK NDN CLK NDN CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN

CLK NDN CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

--- -- - - ---r- -----~-~--


270 08/13/10

271 09/07/10

272 11/30/lO

273 12/01/10

274 12/13/10

275 Ol/24/11

276 11/21/12

277 01/02/13

278 01/22/13

279 03/03/14

280 281 07/28/14

282

283 09/15/14

284 10/22/14

285 10/27/14

~, '] ... ----1


P 001


-TUNC & EMERGENCY MOTION TO -ALLOW EMPIRE TO POST -INSURANCE POLICY AS AN APPEAL -BOND TO STAY*** MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS -ORDER MI COURT OF APPEALS ORDER: -(CLAIM OF APPEAL DISMISSED)

** FILE SENT TO COURT OF - APPEALS; LANSING - (TRANSCRIPTS SENT WITH

96-3280) ** FILE SENT TO COURT OF

APPEALS; LANSING -(TRANSCRIPTS SENT WITH - 96-3280-NI) JOINDER TO RESPONSE & AMENDED -RESPONSE TO EMPIRE FIRE &

-MARINE BRIEF ON APPEAL PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER MI COURT OF APPEALS -DELAYED APP FOR LEAVE TO -APPEAL: DISMISSED MI COURT OF APPEALS ORDER - (REVERSE) APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT RECEIPT# 00120824 AMT $25.00 PLTFS/APPELLANTS' APPLICATION -FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE -SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE APPEARANCE

ATTORNEY: P-30709 HARRISON ASSIGNEE-DEFT/APPELLANT AND -DEFT/APPELLANT'S REPLY TO -GARNISHEE/APPELLEE'S -RESPONSE TO BRIEF ON APPEAL PROOF OF SERVICE FILED FILE RETURNED FROM MI SUPREME -COURT ****************************** ****************************** MI SUPREME COURT ORDER -(COURT OF APPEALS ORDER IS -REVERSED AND CAUSE IS -REMANDED) NOTICE OF HRG FILED SET NEXT DATE FOR: 10/21/14 2:30 PM

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET NEXT DATE FOR: 06/26/15 10:00 AM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING -(CLOSING ARGUMENTS) SCHEDULING ORDER POST REMAND -FROM SUPREME COURT AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER POST

PAGE 19 08/18/09

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK PSL CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK LMF

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK ALG CLK

CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-1 '


286 03/10/15 287

288 07/10/15

289 07/20/15 GILL

290

291

292 07/21/15 293

294 08/14/15

295 10/01/15 296 10/15/15

297 11/09/15

298

299

300

--- ------------- -----~r

.- '.·.- ... -· .... _- -.. -----~,---;··1 · . . .- .. - -.. ·-'· ~I - .... ,c-_'. T


-REMAND FROM SUPREME COURT REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/24/15 10:00 AM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING -(CLOSING ARGUMENTS} STIP/ORDER EXTENDING ALL DATES -IN SCHEDULING ORDER GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY'S -REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF -PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT -WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND -CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REMAND -FROM THE MI SUPREME COURT CASE REASSIGNMENT


SET NEXT DATE FOR: 07/31/15 1:30 PM MISCELLANOUS HEARING

(CLOSING ARGUMENTS} RE-NOTICE OF HEARING REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 07/24/15 10:00 AM

MISCELLANOUS HEARING REMOVE CALENDAR DATES SET NEXT DATE FOR: 08/14/15 1:30 PM


RE-NOTICE OF HEARING MISCELLANOUS HEARING J MCCULLOUGH, #8464 CER (ORAL ARGUMENTS) -ORAL ARGUMENTS HEARD; -COURT WILL RENDER A WRITTEN -OPINION; OPINION CERT OF ORDERING APPEAL TO: -COURT OF APPEALS APPEAL COURT OF APPEALS RECEIPT# 00134264 AMT $25.00 COA, STATE OF MICHIGAN -JURISDICTION CHECKLIST MOTION FILED RECEIPT# 00134271 AMT $20.00 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/16/15 2:30 PM

MOTION HEARING -MTN FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT -W/NTC OF HRG & POS REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 11/16/15 2:30 PM

MOTION HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 11/30/15 10:00 AM

MOTION HEARING -(ENTRY OF JUDGMENT} RE-NTC OF HRG APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF MARIE -HUNT, PERS REP OF ESTATE OF -EUGENE HUNT, DECEASED PROOF OF SERVICE

CLK CLK DAD CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK NDN

CLK CLK CLK NDN

CLK NDN CLK NDN

CLK CLK CRT NDN CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK DAD CLK DAD CLK CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK DAD

CLK

CLK CLK CLK DAD

CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK

'

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

- I - -~--~--


301 11/16/15

302 11/20/15

303 11/24/15

304 11/30/15

305

306 12/01/15 307 12/21/15

308 01/12/16

309 01/14/16

310

311 01/20/16

312

I -- --

-- ".·--. ,,----Co·,


IP002


PROOF OF SERVICE FILED APP ON BEHALF OF MARIE HUNT, -PER REP OF THE ESTATE OF -EUGENE W HUNT, DECEASED -(BRUCE F TROGAN) NOTICE OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT



MOTION HEARING -(TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO RE-POST OINSURANCE POLICY) MOTION HEARING J MCCULLOUGH, #8464 CER -MTN RE: ENTRY OF JUDGMENT: -RULINGS AS STATED ON RECORD; -BRIEFS DUE 12/21/15 AND -RESPONSE DUE 1/8/16; -EMPIRE'S MTN FOR STAY TO BE -HEARD ON 1/21/16@ 10:30; ACTION IN COURT FILED GARNISHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE INS OC'S SUPPLEMENTAL -BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO MTN FOR -ENTRY OF JUDGMENT SET NEXT DATE FOR: 01/27/16 1:30

MOTION HEARING -(ENTRY OF JUDGMENT) RE-NOTICE OF HEARING PROOF OF SERVICE· REMOVE NEXT EVENT: 01/21/16 10:30

MOTION HEARING SET NEXT DATE FOR: 01/27/16 1:31

MOTION HEARING -(TO ALLOW EMPIRE TO RE-POST -INSURANCE POLICY) RE-NTC OF HEARING GARNSIHEE DEFT EMPIRE FIRE & -MARINE INS. CO'S REPLY BRIEF -IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ALLOW -EMPIRE TO RE-POST INS. POLICY -OR REPOST INS. POLICY PLUS -2010 SUPERSEDEAS BOND AS AN -APPEAL BOND TO STAY EXECUTION -OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO'S -REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO -TO GARNISHOR PLTF'S TRIAL -BRIEF RE: EMPIRE'S -RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTEREST -ON JUDGMENT

PM

AM

PM

PAGE 21 08/18/09

CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK NDN CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK ALG

CLK

CLK CLK CRT DAD CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CLK DAD CLK DAD CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF

CLK CLK CLK CLK DAD

CLK DAD

CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK LMF CLK CLK CLK CLK CLK

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

----- -- - I

- .- - - -- ----- ---,.- ". I

EX IBIT 4

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

,c .. -------, --'"T ·_-,· ·~-:y

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE.18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY CF BAY

MARIE HUNT, Personal Representative Estate of EUGENE WAYNE HUNT, Deceased

Plaintiff/Appellee, V

ROGER DRIELICK, ET. AL.

Plaintiffs/Appellees,

V


Defendant/Appellant,

BRANDON JAMES HUBER

Plaintiff/Appellee, V

ROGER DRIELICK, ET. AL


V


Defendant/ Appellant,

THOMAS LUCZAK and NOREEN.LUCZAK,

Plaintiffs/Appellees, V

ROGER DRIELICK, ET. AL


V

EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPA.NY,

Defendant/ Appellant,

---------------~/

Case No: 96-3280-NI-C

CERTIFICATE OF ORDERING APPEAL TO: COURT OF APPEALS

CONSOLIDATED



··c ___ c0 ·,_._ .- •• --.- •••• _.,_-,~-~

i '

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

~I , - -- - -. --'T

Court Address: 1230 y_vashington, Bay City, Michig_an 48708 (989) 895-42?7

ATTORNEYS:

Bruce F. Trogan (P26612) Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellee Hunt 7628 Gratiot Road Saginaw, Michigan 48609 (989) 781-2060

Peter J. Riebschleger (P30689) Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellees Luczak 4597 State Street Saginaw, Michigan 48603 (989) 790-2102

Steven M. Hickey (P33142) Andrew L. Finn (P43606) Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appelfee Sargent Trucking, Inc.

901 Wilshire Drive Suite 550 Troy, Michigan 48084 (248) 247-3300

David S. Anderson (P31213) Ward Anderson Porritt & Bryant, PLC Attorneys for Defendant/Appellant Empire

Fire and Marine Insurance Company 4190 Telegraph Road Suite 3200 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 (248) 593-1440

John J. Shinners (P41337) Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appelfees Drielick 60 Harrow Lane Suite 4 Saginaw, Michigan 48638 (989) 249-4900

Joseph S. Harrison (P30709) Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellee Huber PO Box6916 Saginaw, Michigan 48608-6916 (989) 799-7609

David Carbajal (P41130) Robert Andrew Jordan (P73801) Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee Great - Lakes Carrier Corporation 300 St. Andrews Road Suite 302 Saginaw, Michigan 48638 (989) 790-0960

Nicolette S. Zachary (P49522) Garan Lucow Miller, PC Attorneys for Defendant/Appellant Empire

Fire and Marine Insurance Company 1111 W. Long Lake Road Suite 300 Troy, Michigan 48098-6333 (248) 641-7600

I am a certified court recorder for the court designated above and I certify that:

1. On June 10,20-16, the complete transcript(s) of the proceedings taken in this case before Judge- Harry P. Gill on November 30, 2015, January 27, 2016 and June 2, 2016, were ordered by Nicolette S. Zachary, Attorney for Defendant/Appellant, Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company.

2. Payment has been secured or arranged for and the transcript(s) will be filed no later than September 9, 2016.

Dated: June 13, 2016 McCullough, CER 8464

1230 ashington Avenue Bay ity, Michigan 48708 (989) 895-4267

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

-- : ----------- -=-- -1 -------------- -- -- ---r -- --------------------- ---------~--- l ----------- --=- -1 -----------

EXHIBIT

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

Schultz v. AAA Michigan, Not Reported in N.W.2d (1999)

KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Declined to Extend by Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Stephenson, W.D.Mo., February 6, 2008

1999 WL 33441320 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT RULES BEFORE CITING.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Robert SCHULTZ, Garnishee Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

AAA MICHIGAN, Garnishee Defendant-Appellant.

No. 201175. I May 28, 1999.

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and HOLBROOK, Jr., and MacKENZIE, JJ.

Opinion

PERCURIAM.

*1 Defendant appeals of right from an order granting plaintiff's cross-motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We reverse and remand.

While attending a New Year's Eve party at the home of C. Andrew and Jean Bonner, plaintiff was injured when a fireworks display misfired. The Bonners were insured under a homeowner's insurance policy issued by defendant. Plaintiff filed suit against the Bonners and one other individual, who was also involved in igniting the fireworks display. Citing to a criminal acts exclusion contained in the homeowner's policy, defendant declined to defend the Bonners in the underlying suit. Ultimately, plaintiff was granted summary disposition in the underlying suit. Plaintiff then sought to garnish defendant for payment of the judgment. Because defendant had failed to defend the underlying lawsuit, the trial court granted summary disposition to plaintiff.

On appeal, a trial court's decision to grant a summary disposition motion is reviewed de novo. Spiek v. Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich. 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). "A motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(l0) tests the factual support for a claim. In deciding such a motion, the trial court must consider the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, admissions, and other documentary evidence ... , and must give the nonmoving

(f;,, 20i b Thomson F1outms. t\lo claim to

party the benefit of every reasonable doubt." Porter v. Royal Oak, 214 Mich. 478, 484; 542 NW2d 905 (1995). Accord Spiek, supra at 337. For purposes of the present appeal, defendant is considered to be the nonmoving party.

First, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it ruled that because defendant had failed to either defend the Bonners or to seek a declaratory judgment, defendant could not raise the exclusionary clause as a defense in response to plaintiff's garnishment action. We agree. This Court held in In re Smith Estate, 226 Mich.App 285, 288-289; 574 NW2d 388 (1997), "that defenses raised in an initial letter denying coverage are preserved and may be raised in a later garnishment action." It is undisputed that defendant notified its insureds and plaintiff that it was denying the claim on the basis of the policy's criminal acts exclusion. Therefore, defendant properly preserved its right to raise that defense in response to plaintiff's garnishment action. Id.

Plaintiff asserts, however, that whether defendant could raise a criminal act or omission exclusion defense is irrelevant since the underlying action was decided on the alternate theory of premises liability. We disagree. In In re Smith, supra, the plaintiff successfully litigated the underlying action on a theory of negligence. Id. at 287. Nevertheless, the Court held that the insurer could raise as a defense in the garnishment action the "assertion that [the] plaintiff's injuries were sustained as a result of the 'natural, foreseeable and anticipatory unlawful and felonious acts' of' the deceased. Id. at 290. As in the case at hand, the insurer in In re Smith had first raised its coverage defense in a letter of denial. Id. We conclude that defendant in the case at hand should also be afforded the same opportunity to raise its coverage defense. See also Havens v. Roberts, 139 Mich.App 64, 66-67; 360 NW2d 183 (1984).

*2 We also reject plaintiff's claim that defendant is estopped from litigating the criminal acts exclusion by the rule of res judicata. Res judicata applies to bar re-litigation of legal issues decided in a previous lawsuit only where "(1) the prior action [was] decided on its merits; (2) the issues raised in the second case [were] resolved in the first; and (3) both actions ... involved the same parties or their privies." King v Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, 177 Mich.App 531, 535; 442 NW2d 714 (1989). The parties in this garnishment action were not the same as in the underlying action. Although the insureds were related to defendant by virtue of their contractual relationship, their interests in the underlying lawsuit were decidedly in conflict. See Havens, supra at

Works.

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

------r ------~~---

66-67 (concluding that the doctrine of res judicata was inapplicable, where it had been in the insured's "best interest to have any judgment against her based upon negligence so that the [intentional act] exclusion would not apply").

Second, defendant argues that it gave the Bonners adequate notice of the change in coverage that added the criminal acts exclusion to the policy. Although the trial court did not specifically address this issue in its ruling, we will address it here because of the likelihood that this issue will arise again on remand. Great Lakes Div of National Steel Co,poration v Ecorse, 227 Mich.App 379, 415; 576 NW2d 667 (1998). The question of whether the notice was adequate is a legal question that is reviewed de novo. Bergeron v. Busch, 228 Mich.App 618, 620: 579 NW2d 124 (1998).

Intentional Acts

Intra-Household Liability

Since each of these rev1s10ns may contain new information, we again urge you to read the full text of these provisions in your new policy. [Bold in original; italics added; bullets removed.] We deem the language of the notice letter sufficient to have made the insureds aware of the need to read the policy and make timely inquiries regarding any coverage questions. Once such notice was given, it then became the obligation of the Bonners to read the policy and raise questions about the coverage within a reasonable time. Transamerica Ins Corp of America v Buckley, 169 Mich.App 540, 546; 426 NW2d 696 (1988). 1

Plaintiff has also argued that the use of the word "clarify" in the cover letter suggested that the new language only explained existing exclusions. That argument is without merit. Although the word "clarify" can be taken to refer to an explanation of something already in existence, there is no reason why it cannot also refer to an explanation of something new. The notice alerted the insureds to the existence of new or revised exclusions. The revised policy purported to clarify these exclusions. The notice also specified that the revisions might contain new information so it was

Defendant maintains that the two-page notice it sent to the Bonners along with a copy of the revised homeowners policy was adequate to alert them to, and inform them of, the addition of the criminal acts exclusion. We agree. The cover letter that accompanied the revised policy contained the following relevant language:

PART II BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE NOT COVERED

New or revised policy provisions have been made to clarify exclusions for the following:

Criminal Acts or Omissions

Pollution to the Environment

important for the insureds to read the entire revised policy.

Defendant also argues that the trial court erred when it held that the criminal acts coverage exclusion was not applicable because the exclusion did not have a requirement of foreseeability and that, as determined by the underlying tort action, the alleged criminal act was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. We agree. Regarding the matter of foreseeability, this Court held in Allstate Ins Co v. Fick, 226 Mich.App 197; 572 NW2d 265 (1997), that "a broad criminal acts exclusion ... 'eliminates from coverage more than just intentional crimes or injuries intended or reasonably expected." ' Id. at 203-204, quoting Allstate Ins Co v. Juniel, 931 P.2d 511, 515 (Colo App, 1996). As in Fick, the policy language in this case is clear and unambiguous. It does not contain any requirement of foreseeability.

*3 As for the trial court's conclusion regarding probable cause, the court based its determination on the "uncontroverted" facts that had been submitted in support of plaintiff's uncontested summary disposition motion in

LJS, Government Work:;,

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM

- --------------- ----~f


the underlying action against the Bonners. However, neither those facts nor the summary disposition decision in the underlying action resolved whether the firework that struck and injured plaintiff was illegal and if so, whether the Bonners were criminally responsible for the possession, provision or use of that allegedly illegal firework.

The trial court further ruled that even if the insurer could raise the policy exclusion, the uncontroverted facts precluded the insurer from demonstrating a causal relationship "between an ostensible, criminal act as a s~cial host and the injury here." We again respectfully disagree. In determining whether a particular activity is excluded from coverage, "we look to the underlying cause of the injury to determine coverage and not the specific theory of liability alleged in the complaint." Allstate Ins Co v. Freeman, 160 Mich.App 349, 357-358; 408 NW2d 153 (1987). Plaintiff alleged in his complaint in the underlying action that his injury was caused by the misfiring of an illegal firework. The failure "to maintain their residence premises in a safe condition so as to avoid unreasonable risk of danger or harm to the persons and/or property of others," is plaintiff's specific theory of liability, but it is not the alleged cause of plaintiff's injury.

In light of our foregoing analysis, we hold that summary disposition was incorrectly granted to plaintiff. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Finally, we will briefly address the judgment interest calculation utilized by the trial court in case the issue is subsequently revisited on remand. Ecorse, supra at 415. The issue of what interest rate ought to be applied to the judgment is a matter of statutory interpretation that is reviewed de novo on appeal. Yaldo v. North Pointe Ins Co, 457 Mich. 341,344; 578 NW2d 274 (1998).

Defendant argues that because the underlying judgment is based on a tort action, the trial court erred in granting twelve percent interest on the garnishment judgment pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.6013(5); MSA 27A.6013(5). We agree. Garnishment is a proceeding ancillary to the original suit; it is not a new or separate action. Ward v Detroit Automobile Inter-Ins Exchange, 115 Mich.App 30, 35; 320 NW2d 280 (1982). Therefore, the filing of a writ of garnishment in this case did not start a new cause of action, but rather constituted a post-judgment continuation of the existing lawsuit to satisfy the judgment. A tort judgment cannot be transformed into an action on a written instrument simply by the filing of a writ of garnishment against an insurance company in that tort case. Accordingly, the applicable interest would be

the variable rate provided for in M.C.L. § 600.6013(6); MSA 27A.6013(6).

*4 Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

JANSEN, P.J. (dissenting).

*4 I respectfully dissent. Finding one issue to be dispositive of this case, specifically that whether defendant may raise the criminal act or omission exclusion defense is not relevant because the underlying action was decided on a theory of premises liability and plaintiff is entitled to judgment in this garnishment action as a matter of law, I would affirm the trial court.

This is a garnishment action. In the underlying action, plaintiff was injured on December 31, 1993, when a firework struck him at the home of C. Andrew and Jean Bonner, who were hosting a New Years' Eve Party. Plaintiff filed suit against the Bonners and Steven Campeau, who was setting off the fireworks that night. The complaint was filed on September 30, 1994, and alleged that the Bonners and Campeau purchased and provided numerous legal and illegal fireworks at the party. With regard to the Bonners, the complaint alleged that they owed a duty to plaintiff to maintain their residence premises in a safe condition so as to avoid the unreasonable risk of danger or harm to the people at the party. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Bonners breached this duty by (1) having the presence of alcohol and intoxicated individuals at the party; (2) the staging area for the fireworks was inadequate and poorly located; (3) allowing the use of, or contributing to the use of, fireworks that were illegal; and (4) consuming alcohol.

On November 7, 1994, by letter, defendant denied coverage to the Bonners because of the criminal act exclusion in the homeowner's insurance policy. The Bonners then hired their own attorney to defend the action. Later, plaintiff moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and entry of judgment against the Bonners on the theory of premises liability. In an order entered July 12, 1995, the trial court granted the motion, finding that no genuine issue as to any material fact existed regarding liability. Based on the statement of uncontroverted facts submitted and the other documentary evidence, the trial court found that: (1) the Bonners were the owners and were in control of and present at the premises where plaintiff was injured; (2) the Bonners knew of the fireworks display and should have realized that it would involve an unreasonable risk of harm to the

@ :20'1 b Thonmor1 F{cutors. No clairn to odoinal U,S, Govnrnrnent Works. 3

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


guests, which danger the guests should not have been reasonably expected to fully recognize, unless the display was properly staged, conducted, and supervised; (3) the Bonners failed to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to properly supervise those engaged in the fireworks display, or to warn their guests of the nature and extent of the risk involved; ( 4) that plaintiff, who relied on the Bonners to act responsibly and supervise the display condition and who was standing at an apparently safe distance from the staging area, did not regard the situation as constituting a danger; (5) that as a direct and proximate result of such acts or omissions by the Bonners, plaintiff suffered a severe and permanent physical injury; and (6) judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and against the Bonners for $200,000. This order was entered under MCR 2.604.

*5 Turning to the garnishment action, the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of plaintiff pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). At the hearing held on October 17, 1996, the trial court stated that there was no question that a well-pleaded claim of landowner premises liability was found in the underlying action and there was no question that premises liability is included within the scope of coverage of the homeowner's insurance policy. The trial court found:

So in summary, it would be this Court's primary holding where the carrier fails to both defend and to file a declaratory action, that it loses the right to collaterally attack the judgment by raising issues of exclusion. However, alternatively, the Court finds even when those exclusions are viewed, there was an adequate notice as to the significant expansion in the scope of the intentional act exclusion that was as I've said inadequate as a matter of law, and prevents its operation, and again as a matter of law, and the uncontested facts that form the judgment, that even if the carrier were allowed to raise the issue of exclusions, bound by these uncontroverted facts, simply cannot rise as a matter of law to create the causal relationship between an ostensible, criminal act as a social host for injury here.

Although I agree with the majority that the trial court's initial ruling regarding whether defendant could attack the

underlying judgment was incorrect because defendant preserved the criminal act exclusion by raising it in a letter denying coverage, In re Smith Estate, 226 Mich.App 285, 289; 574 NW2d 388 (1997), I believe that the trial court's second, alternative ruling is correct and requires affirmance of this case.

The trial court cited Morrill v. Gallagher, 370 Mich. 584; 122 NW2d 687 (1963). Morrill involved a case in which the insured defendant played a prank at work by throwing a lit firecracker into a room in which the plaintiff was working. The "prank" resulted in rather serious injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant alleging negligence, assault and battery, and wilful and wanton negligence. The insurer sent a letter to the insured defendant denying coverage under certain exclusions. Ultimately, the case went to a jury trial, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on the negligence count. The counts of assault and battery and wilful and wanton negligence were withdrawn by the plaintiff during trial. Garnishment proceedings were subsequently initiated by the plaintiff to collect on the judgment.

The Supreme Court held, in relevant part, that as a general rule, and in the absence of fraud and collusion, if an insurer who has a right to defend actions against the insured has timely notice of such action and defends or elects not to defend, the judgment in such case is binding upon the insurer regarding issues which were or might have been litigated when the insurer is later sued by the injured person. Morrill, supra, p 586. Therefore, where an insurer conducts the defense of an action for personal injuries against the insured, the insurer is bound by the judgment regarding all matters at issue even if the insurer is not a formal party, so that it cannot subsequently deny that the claim was covered by its policy where the issue was settled adversely to it in the underlying action for damages. Id., p 587; see also In re Smith Estate, supra, p 288 (generally, a garnishee defendant is barred from challenging the validity of the judgment entered in the original action; however, an insurer may raise an exclusionary clause as a defense in a garnishment proceeding if that issue has been preserved . )

*6 In the present case, the trial court's order granted summary disposition in favor of plaintiff in the underlying claim on a theory of premises liability. Thus, while defendant may raise the criminal act exclusion to contest coverage because it preserved that exclusion in the letter, the issue is whether there is a factual question whether the criminal act exclusion applies to the premises liability theory on which plaintiff prevailed. I agree with the trial court that there is no material factual dispute; the criminal act exclusion does not apply to the premises liability

([j) 201 b 'Thomson fkHitnrs. f\Jo clain1 to oriqina! tU3,

RE

CE

IVE

D by M

SC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM


theory as a matter of law.

In Morrill, the Supreme Court went on to determine whether the exclusion provisions barred liability on the part of the insured defendant. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the "business pursuits" exclusion, the "intentional injury" exclusion, and the "worker's compensation" exclusion (where the plaintiff was not an employee of the insured defendant) did not apply and, thus, did not bar liability on the part of the insured. The present case is factually similar. The underlying judgment was entered solely on a theory of premises liability, with no finding that the Bonners had engaged in any criminal act. The judgment was entered on the theory that the Bonners failed to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to properly supervise those engaged in the fireworks display, or to warn their guests of the nature and extent of the risk involved. Defendant is bound by this judgment. Therefore, the trial court properly ruled that there is no material factual dispute that the criminal act exclusion does not apply so that defendant is not liable for coverage on the underlying premises liability claim.

In re Smith Estate does not support reversal of the trial court's decision in this regard. There, the plaintiff brought an action against the estate of James Smith, who had shot the plaintiff during a dispute at a third party's home. The insurer sent a letter to Smith's wife (the personal representative of the estate) denying coverage on the basis that the damages did not result from an "occurrence" and that the injuries were "expected or intended." A jury

-----------~; ----~--~-- -

Smith was negligent. In the ensuing garnishment action, the insurer was permitted to raise the exclusionary defenses it had preserved in the letter, and the jury found that plaintiff had no cause of action against the garnishee insurer because there was no occurrence as defined in the policy. Thus, In re Smith Estate is distinguishable because that case involved a jury verdict specifically finding that there was no occurrence to trigger coverage. This Court was not required to consider whether there was a material factual dispute regarding whether the exclusions asserted by the garnishee insurer applied to the underlying judgment. That issue was resolved by a jury.

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in relying on and applying Morrill to the facts of this case. Further, I would find that the trial court did not err in ruling that the criminal act exclusion in the homeowner's policy does not preclude coverage as a matter of law because the underlying judgment was a premises liability claim with no ruling or finding that the Bonners committed any criminal act. Garnishee defendant is liable to indemnify on the underlying claim.

*7 I would affirm.

All Citations

Not Reported in N.W.2d, 1999 WL 33441320

su~~ntly found _in_ t~~ntiff's favor, ~~-----------------------------------------End of Document @ 20i 5 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

RECEIVED by MSC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM...Exhibit UU 6-2-2016 Final Orders of Judgment Exhibit VV...

Documents

Transcript of RECEIVED by MSC 5/25/2018 3:07:06 PM...Exhibit UU 6-2-2016 Final Orders of Judgment Exhibit VV...