Opinion
Docket Nos. 146433 146434 146435. COA Nos. 299405 299406 299407.
2013-09-18
Marie HUNT, Personal Representative for the Estate of Eugene Wayne Hunt, Plaintiff/Counter–Defendant/Cross–Defendant–Appellant, v. Roger DRIELICK and Corey Drielick, d/b/a Roger Drielick Trucking, Defendants/Counter–Plaintiffs/Cross-Plaintiffs/Third-Party-Defendants/ Counter–Defendants, and Great Lakes Carriers Corp., Defendant/Cross–Defendant–Appellee, and Great Lakes Logistics & Services, Inc., and Mermaid Transportation, Inc., Defendants/Cross–Defendants, and Sargent Trucking, Inc., Defendant–Appellee, and Noreen Luczak and Thomas Luczak, Third–Party–Defendants/Counter–Defendants–Appellees, and Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Garnishee Defendant–Appellee. Brandon James Huber, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Corey Drielick and Roger Drielick, d/b/a Roger Drielick Trucking, Defendants/Third–Party–Plaintiffs, and Great Lakes Carriers Corp., Defendant–Appellee, and Great Lakes Logistics & Services, Inc., and Mermaid Transportation, Inc., Defendants, and Sargent Trucking, Inc., Defendant–Appellee, and Great Lakes Carriers, Inc., Third–Party–Defendant, and Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Garnishee Defendant–Appellee. Thomas Luczak and Noreen Luczak, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Corey Drielick and Roger Drielick, d/b/a Roger Drielick Trucking, Defendants–Third–Party–Plaintiffs, and Great Lakes Carriers Corp., Defendant–Appellee, and Great Lakes Logistics & Services, Inc., and Mermaid Transportation, Inc., Defendants, and Sargent Trucking, Inc., Defendant–Appellee, and Great Lakes Carriers, Inc., Third–Party–Defendant, and Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Garnishee Defendant–Appellee.
Prior report: 298 Mich.App. 548, 828 N.W.2d 441.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 20, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address: (1) whether a lease agreement is legally implied between Roger Drielick Trucking and Great Lakes Carriers Corporation under the facts of the case and under applicable federal regulation of the motor carrier industry; and (2) if so, whether the Court of Appeals erred in resolving this case on the basis of the first clause of the business use exclusion in the non-trucking (bobtail) policy issued by Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, instead of on the basis of the second clause, which excludes coverage for “ ‘[b]odily injury’ or ‘property damage’ ... while a covered ‘auto’ is used in the business of anyone to whom the ‘auto’ is leased or rented.”
Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.