-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY 

COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellee, 

FOR PUBLICATION 

December 1, 2015 

9:00 a.m. 

v No. 322215 

Wayne Circuit Court 

HELICON ASSOCIATES, INC. and ESTATE OF 

MICHAEL J. WITUCKI, 

LC No. 12-002767-CK 

 Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, 

and 

DR. CHARLES DREW ACADEMY and 

JEREMY GILLIAM, 

 Defendants, 

and 

WELLS FARGO ADVANTAGE NATIONAL 

TAX FREE FUND, WELLS FARGO 

ADVANTAGE MUNICIPAL BOND FUND, 

LORD ABBETT MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND, 

INC. and PIONEER MUNICIPAL HIGH 

INCOME ADVANTAGE, 

 Defendants-Appellants. 

Before: METER, P.J., and WILDER and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendants, Wells Fargo Advantage National Tax Free Fund, Wells Fargo Advantage 

Municipal Bond Fund, Lord Abbett Municipal Income Fund, Inc., and Pioneer Municipal High 

Income Advantage (hereinafter “the Funds”), appeal as of right the order granting summary 
-2- 

disposition in favor of plaintiff/counter-defendant, Employers Mutual Casualty Company 

(hereinafter “EMC”), in this declaratory judgment action. We affirm. 

 This case arises out of the outcome of a prior federal suit initiated by the defendants in 

this matter against parties who, in relevant part, were insured by EMC. Briefly, the Funds had 

purchased approximately $7 million in bonds issued by a charter school operated by Helicon 

Associates, Inc. (Helicon), which in turn was managed by Michael J. Witucki.1 The charter 

school was, however, not legally authorized to issue its own debt. Facing the threat of having its 

charter revoked, the school “had to ‘unwind’ the bond issue, and [the Funds] accepted $3.2 

million in newly issued bonds in lieu of their original $7 million investment.” In the ensuing 

federal court securities action, defendants pursued claims pertaining to the bond issuance, 

including violations of various securities and “blue sky” laws, in addition to tort claims. The 

federal action resulted in a consent judgment acknowledging violation of the Connecticut 

Uniform Securities Act (CUSA), Conn Gen Stat § 36b-29(a)(2), and awarding the Funds more 

than $4 million, including costs and attorney fees. 

 EMC provided Helicon and Witucki with a defense in the federal action under a 

reservation of rights, but commenced the instant declaratory judgment action seeking to establish 

that indemnity coverage was not available, under its Linebacker or Umbrella policies with 

Helicon and Witucki, for the claims asserted in the federal action. EMC did not dispute that 

Helicon and Witucki are insureds, but argued that four separate exclusions (return of 

remuneration, personal profit or advantage, guarantee on bonds, and fraud or dishonesty) 

applied, each of which would independently preclude coverage. Helicon and Witucki 

counterclaimed for breach of contract and “bad faith.” The trial court found that three of the four 

cited exclusions applied, and it therefore granted summary disposition in favor of EMC. 

 A grant or denial of summary disposition is reviewed de novo on the basis of the entire 

record to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v 

Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). When reviewing a motion under MCR 

2.116(C)(10), which tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint, this Court considers all 

evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and grants 

summary disposition only where the evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any 

material fact. Id. at 120. 

 In addition, questions of contract interpretation are reviewed de novo. Burkhardt v 

Bailey, 260 Mich App 636, 646; 680 NW2d 453 (2004). Courts enforce contracts in accordance 

with their terms, giving the contract words their plain and ordinary meanings. Reicher v SET 

Enterprises, Inc, 283 Mich App 657, 664; 770 NW2d 902 (2009). “An unambiguous contractual 

provision reflects the parties’ intent as a matter of law, and ‘[i]f the language of the contract is 

unambiguous, we construe and enforce the contract as written.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). “The 

primary goal in the construction or interpretation of any contract is to honor the intent of the 

parties.” Stone v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 307 Mich App 169, 174; 858 NW2d 765 (2014) (citation 

 

1

 Witucki died in November of 2009 and his estate was substituted as a defendant in the federal 

court action. 
-3- 

omitted). Insurance contracts are generally treated the same as any other contract, but it is 

incumbent on an insured to show coverage and incumbent on the insurer to show that an 

exclusion applies. Pioneer State Mut Ins Co v Dells, 301 Mich App 368, 377-379; 836 NW2d 

257 (2013). 

 As noted, EMC asserted that four exclusions in its Linebacker policy to preclude 

coverage: “personal profit or advantage,” “return of remuneration,” “fraud or dishonesty,” and 

“guarantees on bond issues.” The trial court did not specifically address the return of 

remuneration exclusion, but it found the other three to apply. The Funds do not dispute that if 

any of the exclusions apply, coverage is precluded. 

 The fraud or dishonesty provision excludes coverage for: 

Any action brought against an “insured” if by judgment or adjudication such 

action was based on a determination that acts of fraud or dishonesty were 

committed by the “insured.” 

The Funds contend that this provision is not applicable because the underlying securities action 

did not adjudicate the issue of fraud or dishonesty. Specifically, the Funds argue that the 

securities action negligence-based and fraud was not a necessary component for liability. The 

Funds further assert that the trial court ignored the language of the provision, which required a 

judgment or adjudication to effectuate the exclusion, and that the trial court’s ruling rendered the 

policy to be illusory. We disagree. 

 The consent judgment that concluded the federal action was premised on a violation of 

the CUSA, § 36b-29(a)(2). First, although a consent judgment in the abstract is more in the 

nature of a contract or settlement, it becomes a court judgment when “sanctioned” by the court. 

Acorn Investment Co v Michigan Basic Property Ins Ass’n, 495 Mich 338, 354; 852 NW2d 22 

(2014). Consequently, a consent judgment may have an exceptional genesis but “once entered, 

consent judgments are treated the same as litigated judgments in terms of their force and effect.” 

Clohset v No Name Corp, 302 Mich App 550, 572; 840 NW2d 375 (2013) (emphasis in 

original). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define a “judgment” as “a decree and any order 

from which an appeal lies.” Fed R Civ P 54(a). Consequently, the consent judgment here is, for 

all conceivably relevant purposes, just another judgment. 

 Second, the specific statute provides, in relevant part: 

(a) Any person who . . . offers or sells or materially assists any person who offers 

or sells a security by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any 

omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made,

in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, who 

knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the untruth or 

omission, the buyer not knowing of the untruth or omission, and who does not 

sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable 

care could not have known, of the untruth or omission, is liable to the person 

buying the security, who may sue either at law or in equity to recover the 

consideration paid for the security, together with interest at eight per cent per year 
-4- 

from the date of payment, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, less the amount of 

any income received on the security, upon the tender of the security, or for 

damages if he no longer owns the security. [Emphasis added.] 

Witucki and Helicon assisted in the offering and sale of bonds to the Funds without the proper 

authority, resulting in a substantial loss in the value of the investment when the bonds were 

required to be reissued. Pursuant to the plain language of the above statute, the consent 

judgment, by finding a violation of that statute, necessarily found that Witucki and Helicon made 

“untrue statement[s] of material fact” or “omission[s] to state a material fact.” The word 

“dishonest” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed) as “Deceitfulness as a character trait; 

behavior that deceives or cheats people; untruthfulness; untrustworthiness” (emphasis added). 

Because statements and representations made by Helicon and Witucki were “untrue,” and those 

statements and representations comprised the statutory violation, they committed acts of fraud or 

dishonesty within the meaning of the policy exclusion. 

 The Funds further suggest that application of the exclusion renders coverage to be 

illusory. As discussed in Ile v Foremost Ins Co, 293 Mich App 309, 315-316; 809 NW2d 617 

(2011), reversed on other grounds Ile ex rel Estate of Ile v Foremost Ins Co, 493 Mich 915 

(2012): 

 An “illusory contract” is defined as “[a]n agreement in which one party 

gives as consideration a promise that is so insubstantial as to impose no 

obligation. The insubstantial promise renders the agreement unenforceable.” A 

similar, more specific concept exists in the realm of insurance. The “doctrine of 

illusory coverage” encompasses “[a] rule requiring an insurance policy to be 

interpreted so that it is not merely a delusion to the insured. Courts avoid 

interpreting insurance policies in such a way that an insured’s coverage is never 

triggered and the insurer bears no risk.” [Citations omitted.] 

“[T]he doctrine of illusory coverage is applicable ‘where part of the [insurance] premium is 

specifically allocated to a particular type or period of coverage and that coverage turns out to be 

functionally nonexistent.’ ” Id. at 320-321 (citation omitted). Simply put, we are at a loss to 

comprehend how an exclusion based on “acts of fraud or dishonesty” renders the policy or 

coverage illusory absent an argument that fraud or dishonesty is intrinsically necessary to 

Helicon’s and Witucki’s operations, which we do not accept. Mere negligence will not trigger 

the exclusion. Hence, the coverage cannot be construed to be illusory because situations exist or 

could occur that will permit recovery. 

 Based on our finding that the trial court correctly determined the applicability of the fraud 

and dishonesty exclusion, we need not consider the remaining policy exclusions. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Patrick M. Meter 

/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause