DONALD E DUNN V LAWRENCE HEITE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BRENT JOHNSON, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of MICHELLE JOHNSON, and LINDA
JOHNSON,
FOR PUBLICATION
December 15, 2000
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiffs,
v
LAWRENCE HEITE, DETROIT EDISON,
VERNA'S TAVERN, INC., ANDREW LEE
ERVING, TIMDAN, INC., and FORD MOTOR
COMPANY,
No. 212011
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 95-536225 NI
Defendants,
and
VERNA'S TAVERN, INC.,
Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
LAWRENCE HEITE and DETROIT EDISON,
Cross-Defendants-Appellees.
DONALD E. DUNN, as Personal Representative
of the Estate of DAVID E. DUNN, NANCY J.
DUNN, and TINA ZUBOR,
Plaintiffs,
v
LAWRENCE HEITE, VERNA'S TAVERN, INC.,
ANDREW LEE ERVING, DETROIT EDISON
-1-
No. 212029
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 95-536228 NI
COMPANY, TIMDAN, INC., and FORD MOTOR
COMPANY,
Defendants,
and
VERNA'S TAVERN, INC.,
Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant,
Updated Copy
February 2, 2001
v
LAWRENCE HEITE and DETROIT EDISON
COMPANY,
Cross-Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Gage and Whitbeck, JJ.
GAGE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the lead opinion's analysis and conclusion that a judgment enforcing a
mediation award does not satisfy the dramshop act's prerequisites for indemnification. MCL
436.22; MSA 18.993.
I respectfully dissent from the lead opinion's conclusion that Hoover Corners, Inc v
Conklin, 230 Mich App 567; 584 NW2d 385 (1998), requires that we remand the instant case to
permit Verna's Tavern the opportunity to demonstrate its liability and establish its right to
indemnification. I endorse the majority's expressed view that "a claim for indemnification under
MCL 436.22(7); MSA 18.993(7) cannot survive a settlement," ante at ___, and thus, like the
majority, I fail to comprehend the necessity or nature of a proceeding on remand. Unlike the
majority, however, I do not view Hoover Corners' penultimate sentence reflecting the panel's
choice of procedural disposition as essential or necessarily involved in determining the legal
-2-
issues the Hoover Corners parties raised. People v Kevorkian, 205 Mich App 180, 190, n 6; 517
NW2d 293 (1994). Accordingly, I do not believe Hoover Corners demands the unnecessary
remand.
I would affirm.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
