Decker v. Trux R US, Inc
307 Mich. App. 472
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- James and Kay Decker obtained a $2.25 million consent judgment against Trux R Us after James Decker was injured; plaintiffs agreed not to execute on Trux R Us’s assets but to pursue insurance proceeds from Trux R Us’s insurer, Auto Owners.
- Auto Owners previously obtained a default declaratory judgment (in a separate action to which the Deckers were not parties) finding no duty to defend or indemnify Trux R Us; that judgment was affirmed by dismissal of appeal.
- Plaintiffs filed a writ for nonperiodic garnishment naming Auto Owners as garnishee; Auto Owners filed a garnishee disclosure denying liability and listing multiple bases (employee exclusion, policy consent-to-settle violation due to consent judgment, prior litigation/res judicata, laches).
- Under MCR 3.101(L)(1) plaintiffs had 14 days after disclosure to serve interrogatories or notice a deposition; they did not do so within 14 days and instead waited ~50 days to move to extend discovery under MCR 3.101(T).
- The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to extend discovery and treated Auto Owners’ disclosure statements as admitted under MCR 3.101(M)(2), then granted Auto Owners summary disposition. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCR 3.101(T) allows the trial court to extend the 14-day window in MCR 3.101(L)(1) so discovery served later can prevent the disclosure facts from being deemed admitted under MCR 3.101(M)(2) | Decker: Court should exercise discretion under (T) to allow late discovery; (M)(2) shouldn't automatically bar discovery or render (T) nugatory | Auto Owners: (M)(2) is mandatory — if plaintiff fails to serve discovery within 14 days, disclosure facts "must be" accepted as true; (T) cannot override that requirement | Court: (L) and (M) plainly require discovery within 14 days; (T) does not allow circumventing (M)(2); trial court did not abuse discretion denying extension; Auto Owners entitled to summary disposition |
| Whether the garnishee disclosure contained only legal conclusions (so plaintiffs could still challenge liability) | Decker: Disclosure states legal conclusions (coverage, res judicata) not factual admissions; plaintiffs should be able to litigate those legal issues | Auto Owners: Disclosure included factual allegations supporting legal conclusions (e.g., insured status, prior litigation outcome) which, if not contested by discovery, are accepted as true | Court: Disclosure included factual statements; because plaintiffs failed to timely seek discovery those facts are accepted as true and defeat garnishment |
Key Cases Cited
- Coblentz v. City of Novi, 475 Mich 558 (de novo review of summary disposition)
- Henry v. Dow Chem. Co., 484 Mich 483 (interpretation of court rules by plain language and context)
- Jenson v. Puste, 290 Mich App 338 (apply unambiguous court rule as written)
- Costa v. Community Emergency Med. Servs., Inc., 263 Mich App 572 (construe potentially conflicting rules harmoniously)
- Dykes v. William Beaumont Hosp., 246 Mich App 471 (avoid rendering part of a rule nugatory)
- Duffy v. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 490 Mich 198 (specific statutory provision controls over general)
- Gebhardt v. O’Rourke, 444 Mich 535 (specific provision controls over general)
- Shinkle v. Shinkle, 255 Mich App 221 (abuse of discretion standard for discovery-extension rulings)
- Woodard v. Custer, 476 Mich 545 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Wickens v. Oakwood Healthcare Sys., 465 Mich 53 (doctrine against rendering rule nugatory)
- Kidder v. Ptacin, 284 Mich App 166 (reversal for erroneous interpretation of law leading to discovery denial)