Opinion ID: 714160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State Trial Court Wrongful Death Litigation.

Text: 3 Ziebart operates automotive service centers and had workers' compensation and general liability insurance policies with the insurers. 1 In April of 1989, Ziebart's regional branch operations manager Michael LaDuke and other Ziebart officials decided to discharge Robert Zielin, the manager of a Ziebart branch in Westland, Michigan, because of his poor work performance. Zielin apparently learned of the plan to discharge him and sought a meeting with LaDuke, who was his immediate supervisor. LaDuke met with Zielin, then fired him. Shortly afterward, Zielin shot and killed LaDuke in the middle of a public street. 4 LaDuke's estate filed a wrongful death action in Michigan state court against Ziebart and Zielin. 2 In its amended complaint, the estate alleged that Ziebart ordered LaDuke to fire Zielin with willful disregard of its knowledge that Zielin was mentally unstable, and ... that injury was certain or substantially certain to occur. 5 The estate's claim faced one obvious obstacle: the provision in the Michigan Workers' Disability Compensation Act (the Act) which makes the Act an employee's exclusive remedy against an employer for a personal injury, except where an employer commits an intentional tort. The Act also declares that: 6 An intentional tort shall exist only when an employee is injured as a result of a deliberate act of the employer and the employer specifically intended an injury. An employer shall be deemed to have intended to injure if the employer had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge. The issue of whether an act was an intentional tort shall be a question of law for the court. 7 Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 418.131(1) (West Supp.1995) (emphases added). 8 After receiving the estate's complaint, Ziebart contacted the insurers and requested that they undertake Ziebart's defense and indemnify it for any losses. The insurers agreed to defend the claim, but expressly reserved their right to withdraw from the defense, citing, inter alia, an intentional tort exclusion clause in Ziebart's policy. The policy excluded from coverage bodily injury intentionally caused or aggravated by [Ziebart]. 9 Ziebart moved for summary judgment at the end of discovery in the wrongful death case, asserting that the LaDuke estate's complaint failed to state a claim, particularly with regard to Ziebart's having had actual knowledge of certain injury and willfully disregarding such knowledge. The Michigan trial judge denied the motion, and after a four-day trial, the jury, applying the trial judge's instruction, found that the murderer, Zielin, was not liable to the estate. The jury also found, however, that Ziebart was liable for $2.1 million in damages. In response to special interrogatories, the jury specifically found that (1) Ziebart had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge, and (2) Ziebart performed an intentional act which resulted in LaDuke's wrongful death. 10 The insurers then wrote Ziebart and stated that they would, after posttrial motions, withdraw their defense of the wrongful death claim because of the policy's intentional tort exclusion clause. The court denied Ziebart's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. In denying the motion for a new trial, the state trial court expressly held that it was imputing the knowledge of the murderer, Zielin, to the corporate defendant, Ziebart, saying, He had actual knowledge of the murder. He committed the murder. Ziebart, without the aid of the insurers, appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. 11