Affidavit of Lehoan T. Pham in Support of Memorandum On Outstanding Issues and Proposed Scheduling Order

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Type of Case: Civil Other/Misc.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Court File No. 19-HA-CV-18-905
The Honorable Jerome B. Abrams
Plaintiff,
v.
David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki;

Gianna Rucki; Sandra Sue Grazzini- AFFIDAVIT OF LEHOAN T.
Rucki; Deirdre Elise Evavold; Destiny PHAM IN SUPPORT OF STATE
Equine Intervention d/b/a White Horse FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
Ranch, a Minnesota Nonprofit COMPANY’S MEMORANDUM
Corporation; Gina Schmit Dahlen; AS TO THE OUTSTANDING
Douglas Dahlen; Destiny Church; ISSUES IN THE DECLARATORY
Steve Quernemoen and Trish JUDGMENT ACTION AND
Quernemoen, PROPOSED SCHEDULING
ORDER
Defendants.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
Lehoan T. Pham, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes, and
states that:
1. I am an attorney representing State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company (“State Farm”) in the above-captioned matter. I offer this Affidavit
in support of State Farm’s Memorandum on the Outstanding Issues and
Proposed Scheduling Order.

2. That attached and marked as Exhibit A is a true and correct
copy of the Notice of Filing of Order and Order from the Court.
3. That attached and marked as Exhibit B is a true and correct
copy of the Findings of Fact and Order, dated September 25, 2019.
4. That attached and marked as Exhibit C is a true and correct
copy of the Second Amended Notice of Taking Video Deposition of Ms.
Evavold.
5. That attached and marked as Exhibit D is a true and correct
copy of Ms. Evavold’s letter dated October 24, 2019.
6. That attached and marked as Exhibit E is a true and correct
copy of the Fourth Notice of Taking Video Deposition of Mr. Evavold and
his email (dated October 28, 2019) to State Farm.
7. That attached and marked as Exhibit F is a true and correct
copy of the Personal Liability Umbrella Policy.
8. That attached and marked as Exhibit G is a true and correct
copy of Ms. Evavold’s letter dated September 27, 2019 to the Court.
9. That attached and marked as Exhibit H is a true and correct
copy of an email exchange between State Farm and the Ruckis, with
emails dated November 1, 4, and 12, 2019, and December 2, 2019.
10. That attached and marked as Exhibit I is a true and correct
copy of the letter dated October 11, 2019 from the Ruckis to the Court.
2
11. That attached and marked as Exhibit J is a true and correct
copy of the Court’s Order, dated May 16, 2019.
12. That attached and marked as Exhibit K is a true and correct
copy of Ms. Evavold’s letter to the Court, dated October 18, 2019.
13. That attached and marked as Exhibit L is a true and correct
copy of the Court’s letter to the parties, dated October 11, 2019.
14. That attached and marked as Exhibit M is a true and correct
copy of the Amended Notice of Taking Video Deposition of Ms. Evavold.
15. That attached and marked as Exhibit N is a true and correct
copy of Ms. Evavold’s letter dated August 8, 2019 to State Farm.
16. That attached and marked as Exhibit O is a true and correct
copy of the email exchange (dated September 26–27, 2019) between all
parties and (ret.) Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan.
17. That attached and marked as Exhibit P is a true and correct
copy of the Amended Notice of Taking Video Deposition of Mr. Evavold.
FURTHER YOUR AFFIDAVIT SAYETH NOT.
s/ Lehoan T. Pham
Lehoan T. Pham
Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 5th day of December 2019.
s/ Patricia A. Longhenry___________
Notary Public – Minnesota
My Commission Expires: 01/31/2020
3
4834-2875-9214, v. 1
4
Electronically
Electronically Served
Served 19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
11/5/2019
11/5/2019 11:47 AM
11:47 AM
Dakota County,
County, MN
State
NOV 0 5
State of Minnesota District Court
Dakota County First Judicial District
Court File Number: 19HA-CV-18-905
Case Type: Civil Other/Misc.
Notice of Filing of Order

FILE COPY
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company vs David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki, Gianna
Rucki, Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, Deirdre Elise Evavold et. al
You are notified that an order was filed on this date.
Dated: November 5, 2019 Heidi Carstensen

Court Administrator
Dakota County District Court
1560 Highway 55
Hastings MN 55033
651-438-8100
cc: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki

Deirdre Elise Evavold
Destiny Equine Intervention
Gina Schmit Dahlen
Douglas Dahlen
Destiny Church
Steven Quernemoen
Trish Quernemoen
KARI LYNN GUNDERMAN
DAWN L GAGNE
A true and correct copy of this notice has been served pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 77.04.
MNCIS-CIV-139 STATE Notice of Filing of Order Rev. 09/2013
Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
11/1/2019 3:11
3:11 PM
State Farm Fire and Casualty Court File No. 19HA-CV- 18-905
Company,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki, Gianna Rucki;

Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki; Deidre Elise Evavold;
Destiny Equine Intervention d/b/a White Horse Ranch,
a Minnesota nonprofit Corporation; Gina Schmit. Dahlen;
Douglas Dahlen; Destiny Church; Steve Quernemoen and
Trish Quernemoen,
Defendants.
David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki, Court File No. 19HA-CV- 18-4286

and Gianna Rucki,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki; Deidre Elise Evavold;

Destiny Equine Intervention d/b/a White Horse Ranch,
a Minnesota nonprofit Corporation; Gina Schmit Dahlen;
Douglas Dahlen; Destiny Church; Steve Quernemoen and
Trish Quernemoen,
Defendants.
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
11/1/2019 3:11
3:11 PM
The above-entitled matters came on for consideration before the Honorable Jerome B.
Abrams on Defendant Evavold's letters stating she would no longer be participating in either
case. Based upon the files, records, and proceedings the Court makes the following:
1. Parties shall confer to draft a proposed order for the disposition of these cases with the
Court within thirty (30) days of the filing of this order.
2. If parties cannot agree upon a proposal then each party shall submit to the Court
memoranda outlining the remaining issues before the Court and proposed scheduling
order.
Dated: t v ( ~ , BY HE COURT:
f ;
i
w
Jerome B. Abrams
Juotge off District Court
A...
Electronically Served 19HA-CV-18-905
Filed in District Court
9/30/2019 11:34 AM
State of Minnesota
Dakota County, MN
9/25/2019 4:30 PM
File No. 19HACV—18—905

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki; Gianna

Rucki; Sandra Sue Grazzini—Rucki; Deirdre
Elise Evavold; Destiny Equine Intervention
d/b/a White Horse Ranch, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation; Gina Schmit Dahlen;
Douglas Dahlen; Destiny Church; Steve
Quernemoen; and Trish Quernemoen;
Defendants.
David Rucki, Samantha Rucki, Gianna Rucki, File No. 19HACV—18—4286
Plaintiffs,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND

ORDER
Sandra Sue Grazzini—Rucki, Deirdre Elise
Evavold,
Defendants.
The above-entitled matters came before the Honorable Jerome B. Abrams, Judge of
District Court, on September 18, 2019, at Dakota County Western Service Center, Apple
Valley, Minnesota, upon Plaintiff State Farm’s motion to compel depositions, modify the
scheduling order and for attorney’s fees. David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki
joined in the motions in the underlying action (19HA—CV—18—4286). Defendant Deirdre
Page 1 of 7 EXHIBIT B
19HA-CV-18-905
State of Minnesota
9/25/2019 4:30 PM
Evavold also filed a counter—motion.
Attorney C. Todd Koebele appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff State Farm.
Attorney Lisa M. Elliott appeared 0n behalf of David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki and
Gianna Rucki. David V. Rucki was personally present.
Mrs. Evavold did not appear at the hearing.
Based upon the files, records and proceedings, this Court makes the following:
FINDINGS 0F FACT
1. There is an underlying action in which Defendants Rucki commenced an action
against Mrs. Evavold and others alleging Claims for (1) loss of services of Children; (2)
intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) negligent infliction of emotional
distress; (4) false imprisonment; (5) intentional interference with custodial
relationship; and additional counts against Mrs. Evavold of (6) defamation and
defamation perse; and (7) defamation by implication. (Amended Complaint, Dakota
County Court File No. 19HA—CV-18—4286).
2. Mrs. Evavold notified her insurance provider, Plaintiff State Farm of the underlying
action and State Farm investigated coverage. Eventually, State Farm disclaimed
coverage for all of the counts under the governing Homeowner’s Policy and the
Personal Liability Umbrella Policy.
3. State Farm commenced this declaratoryjudgment action (19HA—CV-18—905) in
February 2018 seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend and no duty to
indemnify Mrs. Evavold in the underlying action.
4. State Farm was granted summaryjudgment as to all the claims except Count 4 of the
Amended Complaint (false imprisonment) by Order dated May 7, 2019. The Court
19HA-CV-18-905
State of Minnesota
9/25/2019 4:30 PM
found a fact question remained as to “whether [Mrs.] Evavold’s purpose was part of
an uncovered intentional plan or scheme; 0r fits within the realm of a covered false
imprisonment event."
The remaining issue in this declaratoryjudgment action is whether State Farm owes
coverage obligations under the Personal Liability Umbrella Policy for the count of
false imprisonment in the underlying Amended Complaint in Court File No. 19HA—CV—
18—4286.
Following the Court’s May 7, 2019 Order, State Farm initiated discovery by serving
Notices of Taking Deposition of Mrs. and Mr. Evavold. Notices were served on July 1,
2019 with the depositions scheduled for August 13 and 14, 2019 in St. Paul,
Minnesota. State Farm requested objections by July 15, 2019.
On July 17, 2019, Mrs. Evavold emailed State Farm requesting further information
and objecting to the location of the deposition. State Farm agreed to change the
location to St. Cloud, Minnesota and advised that her deposition would take a full
day, and Mr. Evavold’s would take a haIf—day.
Mrs. Evavold mailed a letter to State Farm dated August 8, 2019, which was received
by State Farm on the day prior to the scheduled deposition. The letter informed State
Farm that neither Mrs. nor Mr. Evavold would appear for their deposition until
coverage was determined.
9. Mrs. Evavold did not appearfor deposition as scheduled on August 13, 2019.
10.State Farm had previously believed that Mr. Evavold would voluntarily appear for his
deposition and did not believe issuing a subpoena was necessary. Based on the
August 8, 2019 communication from Mrs. Evavold, State Farm issued a subpoena to
Mr. Evavold and scheduled his deposition for September 30, 2019.
19HA-CV-18-905
State of Minnesota
9/25/2019 4:30 PM
11.8tate Farm filed this motion to compel the deposition of Dierdre Evavold, issue a
directive to Darin Evavold to comply with the subpoena and appear for his noticed
deposition, for attorney’s fees and to modify the scheduling order. This hearing was
scheduled to be heard on September 18, 2019 at the Dakota County Western
Service Center in Apple Valley to accommodate the Court’s assigned rotation.
12.0n September 13, 2019, Mrs. Deirdre Evavold filed a motion in opposition to
Plaintiff’s motion and a counter—motion, seeking a telephone conference of the
September 18 hearing, asking the Court to deny State Farm’s motions, seeking a
stay of proceedings, requesting a Change of venue, and ordering compliance of all
parties with the mediation order dated June 14, 2019, which is scheduled for
October 1, 2019.
13.Mrs. Evavold’s motion was noticed to be heard in Hastings, however the Plaintiff’s
motion had been previously scheduled in Apple Valley through court staff. Court staff
contacted Mrs. Evavold prior to the hearing by phone and email and advised herthat
the hearing would be held in Apple Valley and that her request for a telephone
hearing was denied; therefore she would need to appear in person.
14.The motion to stay the proceedings until the duty to defend is determined is illogical
based on the fact that the sole issue of this declaratoryjudgment action is to
determine the duty to defend.
15.This matter has been pending in Dakota County since February 2018 and the
underlying action is also venued in Dakota County. The undersigned has presided
over both files and issued substantive orders.
16.0n September 18, 2019, the undersigned waited until after 9:30 a.m. before
conducting the hearing. Mrs. Evavold did not appear nor did she contact the court
19HA-CV-18-905
State of Minnesota
9/25/2019 4:30 PM
staff regarding her lack of appearance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
. Rule 26.02 ofthe Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure provides “Parties may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the
importance ofthe discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discover need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”
Minn.R.Civ.P. 26.02(b).
. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Evavold has disputed the relevancy or proportionality of their
deposition. The depositions sought are within the scope of discovery.
. State Farm’s need to depose Mr. and Mrs. Evavold outweighs any alleged expense or
burden on the Evavolds. Conducting the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Evavold priorto
mediation will aid the parties in potentially reaching resolution.
. Mrs. Evavold failed to appear for a properly noticed deposition without seeking a
protective order or explaining why her deposition falls outside the scope of discovery.
. Venue of this matter in Dakota County is proper. The right to transfer venue pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes §542.1O is no longer available and Mrs. Evavold’s request is
untimely. Transferring venue pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §542.11 is
discretionary with the Court under certain Circumstances. Mrs. Evavold has not
demonstrated sufficient reason to change venue at this time.
19HA-CV-18-905
State of Minnesota
9/25/2019 4:30 PM
ORDER
. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Deirdre Evavold is GRANTED.
Deposition shall occur prior to mediation scheduled for October 1, 2019.
. Darin Evavold shall comply with the subpoena issued for his deposition and appear
as noticed on the subpoena or any rescheduled deposition. If Mr. Evavold fails to
appear, State Farm’s counsel shall advise the Court and Mr. Evavold will be subject
to contempt proceedings.
. The depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Evavold may be scheduled for the same date and
held at a courthouse location. The parties may contact the undersigned’s staff
attorney regarding dates the Court will be available (either by phone or at the
location). The parties shall contact Court Administration in order to schedule and
reserve a conference room.
. The motion to modify the scheduling order in both files is GRANTED. The deadlines
for discovery and dispositive motions shall be extended. The parties shall contact the
undersigned’s staff attorney to coordinate a scheduling conference or phone
conference regarding an amended scheduling order.
. Mrs. Evavold’s motion for a change of venue is DENIED, both as untimely and on the
merits.
. Mrs. Evavold’s motion to stay the proceedings is DENIED.
. Mrs. Evavold’s motion to require compliance with the June 14, 2019 order to attend
mediation is GRANTED in part. The parties shall attend the scheduled mediation.
Depositions shall be conducted prior to mediation.
. Plaintiff State Farm’s motion for attorney's fees is GRANTED. Counsel shall submit an
affidavit as to attorney’s fees incurred for this motion.
19HA-CV-18-905
State of Minnesota
9/25/2019 4:30 PM
9. Ruckis’ motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED. Counsel shall submit an affidavit as
to attorney’s fees incurred for this motion.
10.Any motions not specifically addressed in this Order are denied.
7'25 '3‘”
Dated: Z BYTHE COURT:
OW
Jerom
Juzg/eof
B. Abrams
District Court
10/4/2019 10:46 AM
Dakota County, MN
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Court File No. 19HA-CV-18-905
Honorable Jerome B. Abrams
Plaintiff,
vs.
SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING
David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki; VIDEO DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT
Gianna Rucki; Sandra Sue Grazzini- DEIRDRE ELISE EVAVOLD
Rucki; Deirdre Elise Evavold; Destiny
Equine Intervention d/b/a White Horse
Ranch, a Minnesota Nonprofit
Corporation; Gina Schmit Dahlen;
Quernemoen and Trish Quernemoen,
Defendants.
TO: All Defendants, above-named.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the videotaped deposition of Deirdre Elise Evavold,
by oral examination, will be taken before a court reporter or qualified notary public, on
October 28, 2019, 1:00 PM, at the West St. Paul Courthouse, 1 Mendota Road, West
St. Paul, MN 55118, Conference Room C-1, and thereafter by adjournment until the
same shall be completed.
This videotaped deposition is being taken for all purposes allowed under the
Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and the Minnesota Rules of Evidence. Please take
further notice that the videotaped deposition may be used for any purpose including
presentation at trial.
Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT C
19HA-CV-18-905
Dated: October 4, 2019 HKM, P.A.
/s Lehoan T. Pham______________
C. Todd Koebele, #1728X
Lehoan T. Pham, #0397635
30 East Seventh Street, Suite 3200
St. Paul, MN 55101-4919
Telephone: (651) 227-9411
Fax: (651) 223-5199
tkoebele@hkmlawgroup.com
lpham@hkmlawgroup.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff State Farm Fire and

Casualty Company
4810-7898-6408, v. 1
2
Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT C
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
10/24/2019
10/24/2019 12:40
12:40 PMPM
October 24, 2019
VIA E-FILING
Todd Koebele
St. Paul, MN 55101-4919
Telephone: (651) 227-9411
Re: State Farm v. David Rucki et. ai. Court File No. 19HA-CV-1 8-905
David Rucki et. ai. v. Deirdre Evavold Court File No. 19HA-CV-1 8-4286
Mr. Koebele,
in response to your letter re: the scheduled depositions for myself and my husband, I am
notifying you that we will not be attending the videotaped depositions.
State Farm has made it clear that they are not going to represent me. If you need further
information from me, you can use Interrogatories as this is simpler and easier for all involved
parties. Darin is not a defendant in this case, and he is currently on the job site as an inspector
until the end of December.
Videotaped depositions are completely unnecessary and are not required to prove this case.
This would just be unfocused discovery and again, if further information is needed,
interrogatories and further document requests would meet that need.
It cannot be ignored that, the Summary Judgment summarizes, and establishes factual
foundation for the main argument in support of my defense raised during the defamation
proceedings. The basis for findings is based on "the undisputed factual record" in the criminal
proceedings. My defense is that the record is "undisputed" because the court illegally withheld
material evidence that should have been resolved by the jury; evidence that is suppressed is not
considered in the facts.
Second, the court's severe departure from justice resulted in the facts of the case being
manipulated to create one "inescapable conclusion" so that I would be found guilty. It should be
noted that the evidence and documentation I would have presented would also show that
Dakota County's family court, social service and legal system had a legal and moral obligation to
protect Samantha and Gianna Rucki from physical and mental harm, which it failed to do.
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT D
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
10/24/2019 12:40 PM
Also, it's involvement not only endangered the safety of Samantha and Gianna Rucki but also
created the crisis that caused them to run away. The evidence does, in fact, show instances
where the court acknowledges that the action it was taking against the Rucki children could
cause them to quote "make alternate plans" or run away, and precautions were taken to prevent
this, which failed on two separate occasions. However, if evidence was suppressed, and never
made it into findings of fact, the court could avoid taking responsibility for its role in the case and
avoid public scrutiny. Similarly, if I was found guilty, I would become a convenient scapegoat to
excuse the many violations of law and departures from normal procedures evident throughout
the history of this case. My criminal trial was a manipulated, legally managed farce that resulted
in a "jury trial" in name only and a conviction that resulted only because material facts were
omitted.
The charges involved in the criminal complaint do not include "ruin of the reputation of David
Rucki" - the criminal charges and defamation lawsuit are two separate issues and present two
different legal challenges. Even if my defense was "unsuccessful in the criminal case", there has
not been a jury trial in the defamation case for which State Farm to deny coverage.
It is ridiculous for State Farm to assert that I actually wanted and caused myself to be
convicted of multiple felony charges! Deposing me or my husband is not going to extract a
different response, and by all appearances, seems to be a set-up to be charged with yet
another false crime.
State Farm may not agree with the way I raised my legal defense, but they still have a duty to
defend its policyholder, especially when the insured is raising claims of a bad faith lawsuit. An
insurer should make a good faith effort to settle a case within its own policy limits, dictated by
industry standard and law, and not opinion or speculation.
It should also be noted that Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company covered the Dahlens' claim
in this same lawsuit. This leads to the issue of "joint and several" liability which is a major factor
that has never been addressed, as well as the fact that not all parties have been served.
Depositions of Samantha and Gianna will provide the key information for both sides of this case,
and if further information is required by me, interrogatories and document requests are more
than adequate.
/!
j:
/?
0/UtAMj cJjjLtAfr Date: M -

Deirdre Evavolcf
Cc: Lisa Elliott (via e-service)

Todd Koebele o/b/o State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (via e-service)
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT D
10/4/2019 10:46 AM
Dakota County, MN
Plaintiff,
vs.
FOURTH NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEO
David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki; DEPOSITION OF DARIN EVAVOLD
Gianna Rucki; Sandra Sue Grazzini-
Defendants.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the videotaped deposition of Darin Evavold, by oral
examination, will be taken before a court reporter or qualified notary public, on October
29, 2019, 1:00 PM, at the West St. Paul Courthouse, 1 Mendota Road, West St. Paul,
MN 55118, Conference Room C-1, and thereafter by adjournment until the same shall
be completed.
EXHIBIT E
Page 1 of 4
19HA-CV-18-905
Dated: October 4, 2019 HKM, P.A.
/s Lehoan T. Pham______________
C. Todd Koebele, #1728X
Lehoan T. Pham, #0397635
St. Paul, MN 55101-4919
Telephone: (651) 227-9411
Fax: (651) 223-5199
lpham@hkmlawgroup.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff State Farm Fire and

Casualty Company
4823-6558-9160, v. 1
EXHIBIT E
Page 2 of 4
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company vs. David Rucki, et cl.
Court File No. 19HA-CV- 18-905
) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, Patricia A. Longhenry, being duly sworn, depose and state that on October 4
2019, I served the following:
Fourth Notice of Taking Video Deposition of Darin Evavold
Upon:
Darin Evavold
3015 30th Street Court South
St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301
by depositing a true and correct copy thereof in the United States Mail with postage
prepaid thereon.
Patricia A. Longhenry 1 / I (
Subscribed and sworn to before me

on October 4, 2019.
u
J J GAIL A CHAPMAN
t ma NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA !
Notary Public pr MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 01/31/2020:
4811-8031-8376, v. 1
EXHIBIT E
Page 3 of 4
From: DARIN EVAVOLD <devavold@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 9:05 AM
To: Todd Koebele <TKoebele@hkmlawgroup.com>
Cc: lisa@elliottlaw.net
Subject: 19HA-CV-18-905
Mr. Koebele,
In response to your letter I received on Saturday the 26th, I am informing you that I will not be attending
the deposition scheduled for tomorrow due to my work schedule. My wife also stated this in the letter
you received on October 24th.
Regards,
Darin Evavold
EXHIBIT E
Page 4 of 4
Certified Policy Record
I, the undersigned, do hereby confirm that I am custodian of the records pertaining to the issuance of
policies by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.
I certify that the attached documents represent a true and accurate record of the terms and conditions
of Policy Number 535-2 including any endorsements, if applicable, for the policy term(s) Oct
07 2012 to Oct 07 2013 and insuring Evavold, Darin L & Deirdre E of 3015 30th Street Ct S, Saint
Cloud MN 56301-9083 based on available records.
The policy was in effect on the loss date of Apr 19 2013.
_________________________________
Nathan Weinhold
Underwriter
December 14, 2017
Date:___________________
1004516 2000 143551 200 03-21-2012
Page 1 of 20
EXHIBIT F
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company RENEWAL CERTIFICATE
____ P.O. Box 82542 POLICY NUMBER 535-2 ____
Lincoln, NE 68501-2542
Personal Liability Umbrella Policy
OCT 07 2012 to OCT 07 2013
DATE DUE SEE BALANCE DUE NOTICE

AT1 Q-05- 7260-F724 L F
002615 0001 OCT 07 2012 $ 0
EVAVOLD, DARIN L & DEIRDRE E
3015 30TH STREET CT S COVERAGES AND LIMITS
SAINT CLOUD MN 56301-9083
____ L Personal Liability $1,000,000
____ Self-Insured Retention None
____
0102-C10G1H
____ ____
ST1-
UNDERLYING EXPOSURES
Our records show the following underlying
information. This information was used in
determining the rate of the policy.
AUTOMOBILE EXPOSURES
3
IPPD
Automobile(s)
Automobile Operator(s) 3
002615 L AUG 17 2012 0001 05

Youthful Operator(s) 1
OTHER LIABILITY EXPOSURES

Forms and Endorsements Personal Residential
Watercraft
Personal Liability Umbrella FP-7950.2
Fuel Oil Exclusion FE-5837
01
23-K1-3535-2
23-K1-3535-2
Annual Premium
Amount Due
*Notify your agent immediately if the above listed Coverages and/or Underlying Exposures are incorrect.
Your Coverages and/or bill can be affected if this information is not correct.
138-3076 f.8 10-11-2010 (o1f3088b)
Required Underlying Insurance on reverse side
To obtain a copy of your policy, please contact your State Farm Agent.
Moving? See your State Farm agent.

11325 201I I Agent TAMMIE DOWNARE See reverse for important information.
E M Prepared AUG 17 2012
008 Telephone (320) 252-3600 REB
Page 2 of 20
EXHIBIT F
CONTINUED FROM FRONT
Required Underlying Insurance
(Terms in Bold in this section are defined in the policy)
Minimum Underlying Limits
Combined Limits
Type of Policy (Bodily Injury and Property Damage) or Split Limits
Automobile Liability $500,000 Bodily Injury- $250,000 Per Person

$500,000 Per Accident
Property Damage- $100,000 Per Accident
Recreational Motor Vehicle Liability $500,000 Bodily Injury- $250,000 Per Person
Including Passenger Bodily Injury $500,000 Per Accident
Property Damage- $100,000 Per Accident
Personal Residential Liability $100,000

Watercraft Liability $100,000
NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDER:
Policy changes requested before the "Date Prepared", which appear on this notice, are effective on the Effective Date of this
policy unless otherwise indicated by a separate endorsement, binder, or amended declarations. Any coverage forms attached
to this notice are also effective on the Effective Date o f this policy.
Policy changes requested after the "Date Prepared" will be sent to you as an amended declarations or as an endorsement to
your policy. Billing for any additional premium for such changes will be mailed at a later date.
Please keep this with your policy.
303 Rev. 08-01-2006 (o1r3092a) o1f0021b
Page 3 of 20
EXHIBIT F
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 11326 535-2
____ ____
____
____
0202-G00G08
____ ____
ST-
IPPD
002615 L AUG 17 2012 0001 05
01
23-K1-3535-2
Agent: TAMMIE DOWNARE Telephone: (320) 252-3600

70 11326
Page 4 of 20
EXHIBIT F
71
Page 5 of 20
EXHIBIT F
State Farm®
Personal Liability
Umbrella Policy
FP-7950.2
Page 6 of 20
EXHIBIT F
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATIONS
Your Name
Your Mailing Address
Policy Period
Limit of Liability
Self Insured Retention
Required Underlying Insurance Policies
Beginning on Page
AGREEMENT ............................................................................................................................1
DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................1
MAINTAINING REQUIRED UNDERLYING INSURANCE........................................................5
COVERAGES
Coverage L – Personal Liability ....................................................................................6
Additional Coverages ....................................................................................................6
EXCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................7
DUTIES AFTER LOSS ............................................................................................................10
CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................10
FP-7950.2 Printed in U.S.A.
Page 7 of 20
EXHIBIT F
PERSONAL LIABILITY UMBRELLA POLICY
AGREEMENT
1. We agree to provide the insurance policy are your statements and are
described in this policy: true.
a. based on your payment of premium for 3. When you request changes to this policy or
the coverages you chose; to required underlying insurance, or the
information or factors used to calculate the
b. based on your compliance with all
premium for this policy changes during the
provisions of this policy; and
policy period, we may adjust the premium in
c. in reliance on the truthfulness of your accordance with the change during the
statements on the declarations page policy period and you must pay any
and in the application for this policy. additional premium due within the time we
specify.
2. You agree that:
4. Your policy consists of the policy booklet,
a. you will pay premiums when due and
the declarations page, any endorsements
comply with all provisions of this policy;
issued to amend your policy, and any
and
amendments included in your renewal
b. the statements on the declarations certificates. Your policy contains all of the
page and in the application for this agreements between you and us and any
of our agents.
DEFINITIONS
We define the words and phrases listed below. d. farm tractors, farm trailers or farm
Defined words and phrases are printed in bold implements.
text, and apply throughout the policy. These
2. “bodily injury” means physical injury,
definitions apply to the singular, plural, and
sickness or disease to a person, including
possessive forms of these words and phrases.
death resulting therefrom.
1. “automobile” means a land motor vehicle
Bodily injury does not include:
or trailer, designed for use primarily on
public roads. a. any of the following which are
communicable: disease, bacteria,
Automobile does not include:
parasite, virus, or other organism, any
a. recreational motor vehicles; of which are transmitted by any
insured to any other person;
b. truck tractors designed to pull any type
of trailer; b. the exposure to any such disease,
bacteria, parasite, virus, or other
c. truck tractor trailers; or
Page 8 of 20
EXHIBIT F
organism by any insured to any other automobile, recreational motor
person; vehicle or watercraft by a person
included in 6.a. or 6.b.
c. emotional distress, mental anguish,
humiliation, mental distress, mental However, any such person or
injury, or any similar injury or any organization is not an insured if:
resulting physical injury unless it arises
(1) the use is in the course of a
out of actual physical injury to some
business that sells or services
person; or
automobiles, recreational motor
d. personal injury. vehicles or watercrafts; or
3. “business” means a trade, profession or (2) such person or organization owns,
occupation, including farming. leases or rents the automobile,
recreational motor vehicle or
4. “business property” means premises that:
watercraft.
a. a business is conducted on or from;
7. “loss” means:
b. is rented to others or held for rental, in
a. an accident, including accidental
whole or in part;
exposure to conditions, which first
c. at one time was rented to others or held results in bodily injury or property
for rental by any insured but is damage during the policy period.
currently being held for sale or other Repeated or continuous exposure to
disposition; or the same general conditions is
considered to be one loss; or
d. is held for sale or other disposition in
conjunction with a business pursuit. b. the commission of an offense which
first results in personal injury during
5. “fungus” means any type or form of fungi,
the policy period. A series of similar or
including mold or mildew, and any
related offenses is considered to be
mycotoxins, spores, scents or byproducts
one loss.
produced or released by fungi. For the
purposes of this definition and its 8. “personal injury ” means injury other than
application to this policy, fungus is not bodily injury arising out of one or more of
considered a pollutant. the following offenses:
6. “insured” means: a. false arrest, false imprisonment,
wrongful eviction, wrongful detention of
a. you and your relatives whose primary
a person;
residence is your household;
b. abuse of process, malicious
b. any other human being under the age
prosecution;
of 21 whose primary residence is your
household and who is in the care of a c. libel, slander, defamation of character;
person described in 6.a.; or
c. any other person or organization to the
extent they are liable for the use of an
Page 9 of 20
EXHIBIT F
d. invasion of a person’s right of private owned by, leased to, rented to, or
occupancy by physically entering into available for the regular and frequent
that person’s personal residence. use of any insured:
9. “private automobile” means: (1) “Automobile Liability” means a
policy which provides coverage for
a. an automobile of the private
the insured for that insured’s
passenger type, other than a pickup
liability arising out of the ownership,
truck, van, minivan, or sport utility
operation, maintenance or use of
vehicle, designed primarily to carry
any automobile. That policy must
persons and their luggage; or
include Uninsured and/or
b. a pickup truck, van, minivan, or sport Underinsured Motor Vehicle
utility vehicle: coverage if Uninsured and/or
Underinsured Motor Vehicle
(1) that is not used for wholesale or
coverage is shown on the
retail pickup or delivery; and
declarations page of this policy.
(2) that has a Gross Vehicle Weight Automobile Liability does not
Rating of 12,000 pounds or less. include a Recreational Motor
Vehicle Liability as defined in item
10. “property damage” means physical
(2) below.
damage to or destruction of tangible
property, including the loss of use of such (2) “Recreational Motor Vehicle
property. Tangible property does not Liability” means a policy which
include computer programs or data or the provides coverage for the insured
reconstruction of computer programs or for that insured’s liability, including
data. Theft or conversion of property by an passenger bodily injury, arising
insured is not property damage. out of the ownership, operation,
maintenance or use of a
11. “recreational motor vehicle” means a land
recreational motor vehicle. That
motor vehicle primarily designed both for
policy must include Uninsured
use off public roads and for recreational
and/or Underinsured Motor Vehicle
purposes. This includes, but is not limited
coverage if Uninsured and/or
to, any all terrain vehicle, amphibious
Underinsured Motor Vehicle
vehicle, dune buggy, go-cart, golf cart,
coverage is shown on the
minibike, personal assistive mobility device,
declarations page of this policy.
snowmobile, or trail bike.
b. “Watercraft Liability” means a policy
12. “relative” means any person related to you
which provides coverage for the
by blood, adoption, or marriage.
insured for that insured’s liability
13. “required underlying insurance” means arising out of the ownership, operation,
the following types of insurance policies maintenance or use of any watercraft.
when shown on the declarations page: Watercraft Liability is only required
underlying insurance with respect to
a. With respect to all automobiles or
watercraft which are owned by or
recreational motor vehicles which are
available for the regular and frequent
Page 10 of 20
EXHIBIT F
use of any insured within the meaning h. “Professional Liability” means your
of part a. or b. of the definition of policy which provides coverage for
insured. liability arising out of the rendering or
failure to render professional services,
c. “Personal Residential Liability”
negligent acts, errors or omissions in
means your policy which provides
the practice of your profession shown
coverage for liability arising out of the
on the declarations page of this policy.
ownership, maintenance or use of a
premises as your residence. 14. “retained limit” means the sum of:
d. “Personal Farm Liability” means your a. the amount paid or payable by any
policy which provides coverage for other insurance policy for the loss;
liability arising out of the ownership,
b. the amount the insured is required to pay
maintenance or use of a premises as
for the loss as provided in the
your residence and the ownership,
MAINTAINING REQUIRED UNDERLYING
operation, maintenance or use of your
INSURANCE section of this policy; and
farm.
c. the amount shown on the declarations
e. “Residential Rental Liability” means
page as the “Self-Insured Retention”.
your policy which provides coverage
This amount only applies if an insured
for liability arising out of the ownership,
has no required underlying insurance
maintenance or use of your residential
or an insured’s required underlying
rental property which is occupied by
insurance does not provide any
others.
coverage for the loss.
f. “Business/Office Premises Liability”
15. “you ” and “your” mean the person or
means your policy which provides
persons shown as “Named Insured” on the
coverage for liability arising out of your
declarations page. If a named insured
business or the ownership, operation,
shown on the declarations page is a human
maintenance or use of an office solely
being then you and your includes the
occupied by you.
spouse of the first person listed as a named
g. “Employers Liability” means your insured if the spouse resides primarily with
policy which provides coverage for that named insured.
liability arising out of bodily injury
16. “we”, “us” and “our” mean the Company
sustained by your employees during
shown on the declarations page.
the course of their employment by you.
Page 11 of 20
EXHIBIT F
MAINTAINING REQUIRED UNDERLYING INSURANCE
Required underlying insurance must be b. insured:

maintained at all times in an amount at least
(1) does not qualify as an insured
equivalent to the Minimum Underlying Limits
under the required underlying
shown on the declarations page.
insurance;
The insured is required to pay:
(2) qualifies as an insured under the
1. the difference between the Minimum required underlying insurance,
Underlying Limits shown on the but an exclusion or other policy
declarations page, and the amount paid for provision applies that eliminates
the loss by required underlying coverage under the required
insurance if the required underlying underlying insurance for that
insurance: insured;
a. limits the amount it will pay in one year; c. required underlying insurance:
b. has limits in an amount less than the (1) is not in force;
Minimum Underlying Limits shown on
(2) does not provide coverage because
the declarations page;
a claim is not made while that
c. has limits in an amount shown on the policy is in effect or within the
declarations page as required required time period stated in that
underlying insurance, but it provides policy;
reduced limits for that insured seeking
(3) does not provide coverage when an
coverage under this policy; or
insured operates an automobile
d. amount is not paid in full because the or recreational motor vehicle
insurer providing required underlying outside the United States of
insurance is or becomes insolvent. America, its territories and
possessions, or Canada.
2. the Minimum Underlying Limits shown on
the declarations page if the: However, item c.(3) above, does
not apply if an insured purchases
a. insurer providing the required
or is provided Automobile Liability
underlying insurance makes no
or Recreational Motor Vehicle
payment because it is or becomes
Liability insurance in an amount at
insolvent, and no payment is made by a
least equivalent to the otherwise
state, provincial or association
applicable required underlying
guarantee fund because that insurer is
insurance or, if the Minimum
or becomes insolvent;
Underlying Limits shown on the
declarations page are not available,
the highest available limit.
Page 12 of 20
EXHIBIT F
COVERAGES
COVERAGE L – PERSONAL LIABILITY loss that is not covered by any other insurance
policy, but is covered by this policy, we will pay
If a claim is made or suit is brought against an
the following in addition to the Coverage L Limit
insured for damages because of a loss for
of Liability, but only until we tender, deposit in
which the insured is legally liable and to which
court, or pay the amount due under this policy:
this policy applies, we will pay on behalf of the
insured, the damages that exceed the retained 1. expenses we incur in defending the suit;
limit. The most we will pay for such loss is the
2. premiums on bonds required to defend the
Coverage L Limit of Liability, as shown on the
suit, but not for bond amounts greater than
declarations page, regardless of the number of
the Coverage L Limit of Liability. We are not
insureds who may be liable, claims made, or
obligated to apply for or furnish any bond;
persons injured.
3. reasonable expenses any insured incurs at
Defense
our request. This includes:
If a suit is brought against any insured for
a. actual loss of earnings, but not loss of
damages because of a loss to which this policy
other income, up to $200 for each day
applies, we will provide a defense to the
an insured attends at our request;
insured at our expense by counsel of our
choice when the basis for the suit is a loss that (1) an arbitration;
is not covered by any other insurance policy but
(2) a mediation; or
is covered by this policy. We have no duty to
defend any claim or suit after we tender, (3) a trial of a suit; and
deposit in court, or pay the amount due under
b. reasonable expenses incurred by our
this policy.
insured at our request other than loss
Our Rights of earnings or other income;
We have the right to: 4. costs taxed against an insured in a suit we
defend. Costs do not include attorney fees;
a. investigate, negotiate and settle any claim
or suit that we decide is appropriate; 5. prejudgment interest, when owed by law,
on that part of the judgment covered by this
b. defend the insured in any claim or suit, by
policy; and
counsel of our choice; and
6. interest on the entire judgment which
c. appeal any award or legal decision.
accrues after entry of the judgment but only
ADDITIONAL COVERAGES until we tender, deposit in court, or pay the
amount due under this policy. We will not
When we provide a defense to an insured at
pay interest on damages paid or payable by
our expense by counsel of our choice for a
a party other than the insured
us. or
Page 13 of 20
EXHIBIT F
EXCLUSIONS
There is no coverage under this policy for any: b. the insured is not an employee or
officer of the corporation;
1. loss involving any insured’s maintenance,
use, ownership, loading or unloading of 5. loss arising out of any contamination or
any: pollution unless required underlying
insurance applies to the loss and provides
a. locomotive, unless your required
coverage that pays for the loss in the
underlying insurance for Personal
amount shown as Minimum Underlying
Residential Liability applies to the
Limits on the declarations page;
loss and provides coverage that pays
for the loss in the amount shown as 6. loss arising out of any insured’s business
Minimum Underlying Limits on the property or business pursuits of any
declarations page; insured, unless:
b. aircraft; a. (1) the loss does not involve any land
motor vehicle or watercraft; and
c. truck tractors designed to pull any type
of trailer; (2) required underlying insurance
applies to the loss and provides
d. truck tractor trailers; or
coverage that pays for the loss in
e. farm tractors, farm trailers or farm the amount shown as Minimum
implements while used in farming Underlying Limits on the
operations; declarations page;
2. loss arising out of any insured providing or b. the loss involves a private automobile
failing to provide a professional service; used for business pursuits, and:
3. loss arising out of alleged or actual: (1) required underlying insurance for
Automobile Liability applies to the
a. sexual harassment;
loss and provides coverage that
b. sexual molestation; or pays for the loss in the amount
shown as Minimum Underlying
c. discrimination prohibited by law;
by the insured;
(2) the private automobile is not for
4. loss arising out of any insured’s act or hire either for the use of others or
omission as a member of a corporation’s for carrying the property of others;
board of directors. This exclusion does not and
apply if:
(3) the private automobile is not used
a. the corporation is a not-for-profit to carry passengers for a charge in
corporation; and connection with any business
pursuit; or
Page 14 of 20
EXHIBIT F
c. the loss involves a watercraft used for and provides coverage that pays for the
business pursuits, and: loss in the amount shown as Minimum
Underlying Limits on the declarations page;
(1) required underlying insurance for
Watercraft Liability applies to the 9. loss involving a watercraft or motorized
loss and provides coverage that land vehicle, and arising out of any
pays for the loss in the amount insured’s participation in, preparation or
shown as Minimum Underlying practice for any:
a. race contest or competition;
(2) the watercraft is not for hire either
b. speed contest or competition;
for the use of others or for carrying
the property of others; and c. demolition contest or competition;
(3) the watercraft is not used to carry d. hill climbing contest or competition; or
passengers for a charge in
e. jumping contest or competition;
connection with any business
pursuit; whether or not any of these are formally
organized or prearranged.
7. loss arising out of:
However, this exclusion does not apply to
a. nuclear reaction;
watercraft if the required underlying
b. radiation or radioactive contamination insurance applies to the loss and provides
from any source; or coverage that pays for the loss in the
amount shown as Minimum Underlying
c. any detonation of, or release of
radiation from, any nuclear or
radioactive device; 10. loss sustained while an automobile or
recreational motor vehicle is driven or
8. loss arising out of:
operated by an insured, other than you,
a. the entrustment to any person by any who is excluded by a named driver or
insured; operator exclusion or any similar exclusion
under any required underlying insurance,
b. the supervision of, or the failure to
even if coverage is provided by another
supervise, any person by any insured,
policy;
with regard to the ownership,
maintenance or use; or 11. loss arising out of the actual, alleged or
threatened inhalation of, ingestion of,
c. any liability imposed by an owner’s
contact with, exposure to, existence of, or
liability statute or similar law on any
presence of any fungus at or from any
insured, with regard to the ownership,
source or location; or loss, cost or expense
maintenance or use;
arising out of any:
of any automobile, recreational motor
a. request, demand or order that any
vehicle, watercraft, aircraft or any other
insured or others test for, monitor,
motorized vehicle, unless required
clean up, remove, contain, treat,
underlying insurance applies to the loss
detoxify, neutralize, remediate or
Page 15 of 20
EXHIBIT F
dispose of or in any way respond to or a. either expected or intended by the
assess the effects of fungus; or insured; or
b. claim or suit for damages because of b. the result of any willful and malicious
testing for, monitoring, cleaning up, act of the insured;
removing, containing, treating,
15. bodily injury to a person if the insured is
detoxifying, neutralizing, remediating or
required to provide or elects to provide that
disposing of, or in any way responding
person benefits under a workers’
to or assessing the effects of fungus;
compensation, non-occupational disability,
12. claim made or suit brought against any or occupational disease law;
insured because of bodily injury or
16. bodily injury arising out of the exposure to,
personal injury to any person who is in the
ingestion or inhalation of, lead or lead
care of any insured because of
compounds;
compensated child care services provided
by or at the direction of: 17. personal injury when the insured acts
with specific intent to cause any harm;
a. any insured;
18. property damage to:
b. an employee of any insured; or
a. property owned by any insured on the
c. any other person actually or apparently
date of loss; and
acting on behalf of any insured.
b. automobiles and aircraft owned by,
This exclusion does not apply to the part-
registered to, leased to, rented to, used
time child care services provided by any
by, in the care of, or transported by any
insured who is 18 years of age or younger
insured;
and the services are not provided on
business property; 19. liability imposed on or assumed by any
insured through any unwritten or written
13. bodily injury or personal injury to any
agreement;
insured as defined in part a. or b. of the
definition of insured, including any claim 20. liability for any insured’s share of any
made or suit brought against any insured charge assessed against all members of
to share damages with or repay someone any type of association of property owners;
else who may be obligated to pay damages or
because of such bodily injury or personal
21. order of restitution issued by a court in a
injury;
criminal proceeding or equitable action.
14. bodily injury or property damage which
is:
Page 16 of 20
EXHIBIT F
DUTIES AFTER LOSS
In the event of a loss for which this policy may insurer every demand, notice, summons
provide coverage, all insureds seeking and other process received related to the
coverage must: claim or suit;
1. immediately notify us of such loss. The 3. at all times, help and cooperate with us and
notice must give us: any other insurer providing insurance, and
at our request, assist in:
a. reasonably available information on the
time, place and circumstances of the a. making settlement;
loss; and
b. the enforcement of any right of
b. names and addresses of any claimants contribution or indemnity against a
and witnesses; and person or organization who may be
liable to the insured;
c. the name of the insurer and
identification number of any other policy c. the conduct of suits and attend
providing insurance; depositions, hearings and trials;
2. immediately notify us and any other insurer d. securing and giving evidence; and
providing insurance of any claim or suit filed
e. locating and getting witnesses to attend
against the insured and send us and such
depositions, hearings, and trials.
CONDITIONS
1. Appeals. We may appeal any award or you cancel, the refund of any unearned
legal decision against any insured or us. premium will be based on our rules for
cancellation. We may waive the
2. Assignment. Any assignment of this policy
requirement that the notice be in writing
will be valid only after we give our written
by confirming the date and time of
consent.
cancellation to you in writing.
3. Bankruptcy. Bankruptcy or insolvency of
b. If we choose to cancel the policy, we
an insured or his or her estate shall not
will mail or deliver to your last known
relieve us of our obligations under this
address notice of cancellation at least:
policy.
(1) 10 days prior to the date of
4. Cancellation. This policy may be cancelled
cancellation, if the cancellation is
by you or us at any time during the policy
for nonpayment of premium;
period.
(2) 30 days prior to the date of
a. You may cancel by giving advance
cancellation, if the cancellation is
written notice to us or our agent of the
for a reason other than nonpayment
date the cancellation is to take effect. If
of premium.
10
Page 17 of 20
EXHIBIT F
The refund of any unearned premium 10. Non-Renewal. We may elect not to renew
will be prorated. Proof of mailing will be this policy by delivering or mailing written
sufficient proof of notice. notice to your last known address. The
notice will be delivered or mailed at least 30
Delay in the return of any unearned
days before the expiration date of this
premium does not change the
policy. Proof of mailing will be sufficient
cancellation date.
proof of notice.
5. Conformity to State or Provincial Law.
11. Notification for Underwriting Purposes. If
When a policy provision is in conflict with
any required underlying insurance limits
the applicable law of the state or province in
are used up, reduced, suspended or
which this policy is issued, the law of such
cancelled, you must notify us immediately,
state or province will apply.
and immediately replace the coverage.
6. Death. If you die, this policy will cover as Providing this notification does not alter an
an insured, your estate and your personal insured’s obligation to comply with the
representative while acting on behalf of MAINTAINING REQUIRED UNDERLYING
your estate, until this policy is terminated. INSURANCE section of this policy.
This applies only with respect to a loss
12. Other Insurance. The coverage provided
arising out of the premises and property
by this policy is excess over all other
that are part of the estate and then only if
insurance and self insurance.
you, while living, would have had coverage.
13. Policy Period. This policy applies only to a
7. Insolvency. When coverage is not
loss which first occurs during the policy
available from any required underlying
period shown on the declarations page or
insurance because the company issuing
renewal certificate.
such policy is or becomes insolvent, this
policy will not replace coverage of the 14. Recovery. Insureds must do all that they
insolvent company or any state, provincial can to preserve their rights of recovery,
or association guarantee fund available for including rights of indemnity or contribution.
the loss. These rights will belong to us up to the
amount we pay for a loss.
8. Joint and Individual Interests. When
there are two or more named insureds, 15. Suit Against Us. No action may be brought
each acts for all to cancel or change the against us unless all insureds have
policy. complied with all policy provisions.
9. Liberalization Clause. If we revise the No one has the right to join us as a party to
language of this policy to broaden coverage an action against an insured. Further, no
for no additional premium in the state or action may be brought against us until the
province in which your policy is issued, the obligation of the insured has been
broadened coverage will apply to your determined by final judgment after an actual
policy on the date the change is effective in trial, including all appeals, or agreement
such state or province. signed by us.
11
Page 18 of 20
EXHIBIT F
16. Voluntary Payments and Obligations. 17. Waivers. Waivers of our rights under this
The insured may not, except at the policy are only valid if we consent in writing.
insured’s own cost, voluntarily make
payments, assume obligations or incur
expenses.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Company has caused this policy to be signed by its President and
Secretary at Bloomington, Illinois.
Secretary President
The Board of Directors, in accordance with Article VI(c) of this Company’s Articles of Incorporation,
may from time to time distribute equitably to the holders of the participating policies issued by said
Company such sums out of its earnings as in its judgment are proper.
12
Page 19 of 20
EXHIBIT F
FE-5837
Page 1 of 1
FE-5837 FUEL OIL EXCLUSION ENDORSEMENT
EXCLUSIONS
The following exclusion is added:
We do not provide any coverage under this policy for any loss arising out of the actual, alleged or
threatened discharge, seepage, leakage, migration, dispersal, spill, release, emission, escape,
leaching or disposal of fuel oil.
FE-5837
Page 20 of 20
EXHIBIT F
Deirdre Evavold
3015 30th Street Court South
St. Cloud, MN 56301
(320) 293-6233
September 27, 2019
Judge Jerome Abrams

First Judicial District
1560 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033
(651) 438-8100
Re: Court File No. 19HA-CV-18-905

and 19HA-CV-18-4286
Judge Abrams,
I am writing to notify you that I have requested no further involvement in this case by
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company on September 27, 2019. I also notified Mr.
Lehoan on September 17, 2019, that I was no longer defending the underlying suit which
was the reason for not appearing at the September 18th hearing. Clearly, this was a
material omission by Mr. Lehoan.
I also wrote to Judge Boylan to notify him that I would no longer be defending the
lawsuits and that I would not be attending the mediation scheduled for October 1st,
2019.
Attached is a demand letter from Lisa Elliott o/b/o David Rucki that was emailed today.
Respectfully,
Deirdre Evavold
3015 30th Street Ct. South
St. Cloud, MN 56301
(320) 293-6233
cc: Attorney Lisa Elliott

Attorney Todd Koebele
Attorney Lehoan Pham
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT G
17/2019 1:49 PM
kota County, MN
ELLIOTT LAW OFFICES, P.A.

Attorneys at Law
2409 West 66th Street

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423
Telephone: 612-861-3000
Fax: 612-861-3004
Lisa M. Elliotti Of Counsel
Patrick H. Elliottz Jon W. Blanchar
Dawn L. Gagne
1 Also Admitted in Colorado and South Dakota Writer's Direct Dial: 612-466-7190
2 Also Admitted in Wisconsin and Arizona E-Mail: lisa@elliottlaw.net
September 27, 2019
C. ToddKoebel, Esq. Via Email Only

Kari L. Gunderman, Esq.
HKM, P.A.
30 East 7th Street, Suite 3200
St. Paul, MN 55101
RE: David Rucki, et al., v. Deirdre E. Evavold, et. al.

Court File No.: 19HA-CV- 18-4286
Dear Counsel:
The above-captioned case is set for mediation on October 1, 2019 before the Honorable Arthur J.
Boylan at your offices and pursuant to Judge Abrams Order.
Please be advised that settlement demand in the above case is $450,000.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Elliott
LME:rla
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT G
Lehoan "Hahn" Pham
From: Todd Koebele <TKoebele@hkmlawgroup.com>

Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 8:08 AM
To: lisa@elliottlaw.net
Cc: Lehoan "Hahn" Pham
Subject: David Rucki, Samantha Rucki, Gianna Rucki vs Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki, Deirdre Elise
Evavold, Destiny Equine Intervention, Gina Schmit Dahlen, Douglas Dahlen et. al
Hi Lisa
Per the Court’s recent Order, we are to confer on how to proceed and discuss whether we can submit a joint proposed
order for disposition by December 5, 2019. I am sorry that we have been unable to connect.
Unfortunately, we do not see the parties agreeing on a resolution in the declaratory judgment action. Given how Ms.
Evavold has indicated that she no longer seeks to participate in the declaratory judgment action, State Farm believes
that the Court should issue a new scheduling order and allow State Farm to renew its motion for summary judgment. I
know that you have indicated that you believe your client has an interest in the Evavold umbrella policy. State Farm
believes that Minnesota law is clear that your clients have no privity under the umbrella policy, and no right to obtain
insurance benefits under the umbrella policy.
Unless you think otherwise, we suggest that the parties proceed with serving/filing their respective memoranda on
December 5, 2019 outlining the remaining issues in the declaratory judgment action and propose a new scheduling
order. Let me know your thoughts.
We are happy to further discuss via phone.
Todd
C. Todd Koebele, Attorney at Law

HKM, P.A.
30 E 7th St., Suite 3200
St. Paul, MN 55101 4919
P 651 227 9411
email|website|map|vCard
From: Todd Koebele

Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:59 AM
To: Lisa Elliott <lisa@elliottlaw.net>
Subject: Re: NOTIFICATION OF ESERVICE SUBMISSION FOR Case 19HA-CV-18-4286, David Rucki, Samantha Rucki, Gianna
Rucki vs Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki, Deirdre Elise Evavold, Destiny Equine Intervention, Gina Schmit Dahlen, Douglas
Dahlen et. al
Hi Lisa
Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT H
I don’t know if you saw my email below? I am headed to Boston for DRI for the rest of this week. I could meet with you
almost any day next week. What works at your end?
Todd
To help
protect y our
priv acy ,
Micro so ft
Office
prev ented
auto matic
download of
this pictu re
from the
In ternet.

HKM, P.A.
St. Paul, MN 55101 4919
P 651 227 9411 F 651 223 5199
On Nov 4, 2019, at 8:13 AM, Todd Koebele <TKoebele@hkmlawgroup.com> wrote:
From: Todd Koebele
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2019 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: NOTIFICATION OF ESERVICE SUBMISSION FOR Case 19HA-CV-18-4286, David Rucki,
Samantha Rucki, Gianna Rucki vs Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki, Deirdre Elise Evavold, Destiny Equine
Intervention, Gina Schmit Dahlen, Douglas Dahlen et. al
Sounds like a plan. I am traveling most of this week. Could we meet Monday or Tuesday of next week?
Are you by chance going to DRI in Boston next week?

HKM, P.A.
St. Paul, MN 55101 4919
P 651 227 9411 F 651 223 5199
On Nov 1, 2019, at 3:30 PM, Lisa Elliott <lisa@elliottlaw.net> wrote:
Todd,
Let’s meet next week to figure out what we do from here.
Lisa M. Elliott
Elliott Law Offices, P.A.
(612) 466-7190
(612) 861-3004 – Fax
This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be
used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended
recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
From: efilingmail@tylerhost.net
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2019 3:18 PM
Subject: NOTIFICATION OF ESERVICE SUBMISSION FOR Case 19HA-CV-18-4286, David Rucki, Samantha
Rucki, Gianna Rucki vs Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki, Deirdre Elise Evavold, Destiny Equine Intervention,
Gina Schmit Dahlen, Douglas Dahlen et. al
This message was automatically generated. Do not reply to this e-mail.
You are the recipient of eServed documents in case 19HA-CV-18-4286, David Rucki, Samantha Rucki,
Gianna Rucki vs Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki, Deirdre Elise Evavold, Destiny Equine Intervention, Gina
Schmit Dahlen, Douglas Dahlen et. al.
Open hyperlink View document to view document EFileAndServe
Submitted by: Faline Williams

Filing Attorney: Judge Jerome Abrams
Filed Document Information: Order-Other
Filing Description: Order
Date Submitted: 11/1/2019 3:18 PM CST
The following are the service contacts for this filing:
David Rucki:
Rita Anderson (rita@elliottlaw.net)
Lisa Elliott (lisa@elliottlaw.net)
Deirdre Elise Evavold:
Deirdre Evavold (dedeevavold@hotmail.com)
Other Service Contacts not associated with a party on the case:
Marshall Tanick (mtanick@meyernjus.com)
If you need technical assistance, please call 1-800-297-5377. The link above will remain active for 30
days from the date of acceptance of the eFiling. If that link is not accessible, copy this URL into your
browser address bar to view the document:
https://minnesota.tylerhost.net/ViewServiceDocuments.aspx?ADMIN=0&SID=7d01157e-fa9f-4a05-
94f2-8df1e0cbc4e2
Minnesota Judicial Branch Disclaimer: This is an official government communication. As the recipient, you
are responsible for the lawful use of this information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended solely
for the individual or agency to which they are addressed. They may be confidential and/or contain
privileged or otherwise non-public information. Do not disseminate this e-mail and any attachments unless
you are authorized to do so under applicable court rules or statutes. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail, do not copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance upon this e-mail or any attachments and
delete this e-mail and any attachments immediately. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately at 1-800-297-5377. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
ELLIOTT LAW OFFICES, P.A
Attorneys at Law
Telephone: 612-861-3000
Fax: 612-861-3004
Lisa M. Elliotti Of Counsel
Patrick H. Elliotti Jon W. Blanchar
Dawn L. Gagne Julian C. Janes
1 Also Admitted in Colorado and South Dakota Writer’s Direct Dial: 612-466-7190
2 Also Admitted in Wisconsin and Arizona E-Mail: lisa@elliottlaw.net
October 11, 2019
Via eFS
The Honorable Jerome B. Abrams

Judge of District Court
14955 Galaxie Ave West
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Re: David Rucki, et al., v. Deirdre E. Evavold, et. al.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. David Rucki, et al
Court File No.: 19HA-CV-18-4286 (Underlying Action)
Court File No.: 19HA-CV-18-905
Dear Judge Abrams:
I am writing in response to your request for our respective clients’ comments on Deirdre
Evavold’s letter of September 27, 2019, in which she states that she is withdrawing her defense
in both cases (underlying action and declaratory judgment action).
I do not agree that State Farm is then entitled to a default judgment in its favor in the Declaratory
Judgment action as my clients are still parties to that action and have not defaulted. We will
continue to represent and defend my clients’ interests in asserting that there is coverage under the
State Farm policy for the actions of its insured.
I suggest we proceed with discovery (the Evavolds’ depositions are scheduled for the end of this
month) and mediation to attempt to resolve the dispute between State Farm and the Ruckis.
Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
Lisa M. Elliott
LME:abm
cc: All parties and counsel of record (via e-service)
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT I
19HA-CV-18-905
Court
State of Minnesota
5/7/2019 6:47 PM
File No. 19HA-CV-1 8-905

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER GRANTING IN
David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki; Gianna PART AND DENYING IN
Rucki; Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki; Deidre PART
Elise Evavold; Destiny Equine Intervention PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
d/b/a White Florse Ranch, a Minnesota FOR SUMMARY
Nonprofit Corporation; Gina Schmit JUDGMENT
Dahlen; Douglas Dahlen; Destiny Church;
Steve Quernemoen and Trish
Quernemoen,
Defendants.
The above-entitled matter came before the Flonorable Jerome B. Abrams on
February 22, 2019 at the Dakota County Courthouse, Hastings, Minnesota on Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment. Kari Gunderman, Attorney at Law, appeared for and on
behalf of Plaintiff. Dawn Gagne, Attorney at Law, appeared for and on behalf of
Defendants David, Samantha, and Gianna Rucki (the "Rucki Defendants"). Deirdre
Elise Evavold appeared personally without legal counsel. Based upon the filings, the
record, and the proceedings, this Court makes the following:
1 . This declaratory action arises out of an underlying civil suit, court file # 1 9HA-CV-1 8-
4286 (the "Underlying Action"). The Underlying Action was commenced by the
Rucki Defendants against Defendant Evavold and others and alleges, among other
things, that Defendant Evavold defamed the Rucki Defendants. The Amended
Complaint in the Underlying Action consists of seven counts.
Page 1 of 12
EXHIBIT J
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
5/7/2019 6:47 PM
2. Defendant Evavold, at all relevant times, had a Homeowners Policy and Personal
Liability Umbrella Policy ("PLUP") with Plaintiff and notified Plaintiff of the Underlying
Action. State Farm denied coverage and commenced this declaratory action
seeking an order that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant Evavold
under the Homeowners Policy or PLUP.
3. The pertinent definitions and sections of Defendant Evavold's Homeowners Policy
are the following:
a. Under the Personal Liability coverage (i.e. Coverage L) under Section II of the
Homeowners Policy, "[i]f a claim is made or a suit is brought against an
insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which
this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence, we will: 1. Pay up to our limit
of liability for damages for which the insured is legally liable."
b. '"[Bjodily injury' means physical injury, sickness, or disease to a person. This
includes required care, loss of services and death resulting therefrom."
c. '"[Pjroperty damage' means physical damage to or destruction of tangible
property, including loss of use of this property. Theft or conversion of property
by any insured is not property damage."
d. '[Ojccurence', when used in Section II of this policy, means an accident
including exposure to conditions, which results in: a. bodily injury; or b.
property damage; during the policy period."
e. Under the Exclusions for Section II of the Homeowner's Policy, "Coverage L
and Coverage M do not apply to: a. bodily injury or property damage: (1)
Page 2 of 12
EXHIBIT J
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State of Minnesota
5/7/2019
5/7/2019 6:47
6:47 PM
which is either expected or intended by the insured; or (2) which is the result
of willful and malicious acts of the insured."
4. The pertinent definitions and sections of Defendant Evavold's PLUP are the
following:
a. Under the Personal Liability coverage of the PLUP, "[i]f a claim is made or suit
is brought against an insured for damages because of a loss for which the
insured is legally liable and to which this policy applies, we will pay on behalf
of the insured, the damages that exceed the retained limit."
b. "If a suit is brought against any insured for damages because of a loss to
which this policy applies, we will provide a defense to the insured at our
expense by counsel of our choice when the basis for the suit is a loss that is
not covered by any other insurance policy but is covered by this policy."
c. "'loss' means: a. an accident . . . b. the commission of an offense which first
results in personal injury during the policy period. A series of similar or related
offenses is considered to be one loss."
d. "'personal injury' means injury other than bodily injury arising out of one or
more of the following offenses: . . . c. libel, slander, defamation of character. .
e. Under the Exclusions of the PLUP, "[tjhere is no coverage under this policy
for any: ... 17. personal injury when the insured acts with specific intent to
cause any harm."
Page 3 of 12
EXHIBIT J
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
5/7/2019 6:47 PM
5. The parties in attendance at the hearing, appear to agree they are not contesting
coverage for Counts 1 through 5 of the Amended Complaint in the Underlying
Action.
6. Count 6 in the Amended Complaint in the Underlying Action is a Defamation and
Defamation per se claim against Defendant Evavold. Count 6, in part, states
Defendant Evavold has knowingly, intentionally, and
maliciously made false and defamatory written and verbal
statements concerning David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and
Gianna Rucki, the natural tendency of which is to hold them
up to hatred, scorn, contempt, ridicule and disgrace in the
minds of right-thinking person, and to deprive them of their
friendly society.
Count 6 further states that "Defendant Evavold's false and defamatory statements
concerning David Rucki, Samantha Rucki and Gianna Rucki were intended to bring
them disrepute and to harm the Ruckis' personal and professional reputation in the
community."
7. Count 7 of the Amended Complaint in the Underlying Action is Defamation by
Implication claim against Defendant Evavold. Nothing in Count 7 of the Amended
Complaint alleges that Defendant Evavold intended to harm the Rucki Defendants
through her alleged conduct.
8. Paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint states
Defendant Evavold has frequently and consistently
published false, defamatory and vile statements about David
Page 4 of 12
EXHIBIT J
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
5/7/2019 6:47 PM
Rucki and the Rucki family, including for example, the
following statements: (a) that David Rucki beat his ex-wife
Sandra Rucki while she was pregnant and assaulted his
unborn before the child took his first breath; (b) "David
engaged in blatant and brazen mortgage fraud;" (c) Rucki
was engaged in witness tampering; (d) in pushing the false
story, ABC 20/20 covered up domestic abuse, and
encouraged viewers to disregard cries for help from the
children who courageously spoke up to disclose physical
and mental abuse they endured at the hands of a violent
father; (e) David Rucki has conspired to raid a trust from
Sandra's father, Albert, to Sandra; (f) reported that Sandra
[Grazzini-Rucki] said Rucki is a risk to the community, and
claims he abused their children and sexually abused another
child; and (g) alleged others revealed evidence of mortgage
fraud and RICO crimes by David Rucki.
9. Paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint states,
Defendant Evavold has published such false, defamatory
and vile statements about David Rucki and the Rucki family
despite numerous orders to cease and desist such
publications including orders from several judges in Dakota
County. In an order dated July 26, 2018, Judge Phillip
Kanning called Defendant Evavold's statements "most evil."
Page 5 of 12
EXHIBIT J
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
5/7/2019 6:47 PM
10. Defendant Evavold filed an Answer and Counterclaim in the Underlying Action which
states, among other things, that "Plaintiff's alleged damages are due to negligence,
acts, or omissions of third parties over whom defendant has no control." The
Answer and Counterclaim further states that "Plaintiff's alleged damages were
caused by events, conditions, or circumstances beyond defendant's control, for
which defendant is not legally liable."
1 1 . Defendant's Evavold's Answer and Counterclaim further states in paragraph 49 that
"David Rucki has a well-documented history of coercion and intimidation and his five
children, his ex-wife, two neighbors and an in-law all successfully took out a
restraining order against him. Rucki also has a long history of violence including a
bar fight, a road rage incident, incidents of stalking, multiple violations of restraining
orders, and choking his wife with an organ leg." The Answer and Counterclaim
requests judgment for Defendant Deidre Evavold against Plaintiffs for defamation by
implication and defamation per se.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Summary Judgement
Summary judgment shall be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that either party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law." Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. See also DLH, Inc. v. Russ. 566
N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997). In reviewing the evidence offered in support of a summary
judgment motion, "[tjhe district court must view the evidence in the light most favorable
Page 6 of 12
EXHIBIT J
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
5/7/2019 6:47 PM
to the nonmoving party." Grondahl v. Bulluck. 318 N.W.2d 240, 242 (Minn. 1982). See
also Lietz v. Northern States Power Co.. 718 N.W.2d 865, 869 (Minn. 2006). The court
is precluded from weighing the evidence. DLH, Inc., 566 N.W.2d at 70. However,
"[m]ere speculation, without some concrete evidence, is not enough to avoid summary
judgment." Bob Useldinqer & Sons, Inc. v. Hangsleben, 505 N.W.2d 323, 328 (Minn.
1993), quoted in Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc.. 749 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Minn. 2008).
"The party resisting summary judgement must do more than rest on mere averments."
DLH, Inc.. 566 N.W.2d at 71 .
2. Waiver
The Court acknowledges there is present in the Gunderman declaration (Ex. 5) that
unequivocally waives "our rights to contest coverage under our State Farm Home
Owners Policy in case no. 19HA-CV-1 8-905." The communication, styled as a letter is
contained in an e-mail to State Farm's coverage counsel dated April 2, 2018. It
references both the Homeowners and Umbrella Policies. However, State Farm has
raised an issue that would have been resolved by the waiver, La insurance coverage
under the Umbrella Policy in its Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, at
Section IV, p.22. Thus it appears the Court is to consider issues raised in the original
Complaint as well as the Amended Complaint in Court file 19HA-CV-1 8-905 despite the
apparent agreement to not challenge the coverage for claims in the initial Complaint.
Insurance Policy Interpretation
3. Homeowner's Policy
Principally at issue is whether Counts 6 or 7 of the Amended Complaint have, even
with the broadest reading in favor of finding coverage, is whether this policy can
Page 7 of 12
EXHIBIT J
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
5/7/2019 6:47 PMPM
respond to the newly alleged claims. In the Court's view, with respect to the
Homeowner's Policy, there is no room for argument: it does not provide coverage for
any of the claims asserted in the underlying Complaints. None of the claims constitute
'bodily injury' or 'property damage' as this term is normally understood. Nor do any of
the claims constitute an 'occurrence.' Minnesota law provides that there must be some
component of fortuitous loss, "an unexpected happening without intention or
design." Weis v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 64 N.W.2d 366, 368 (Minn. 1964). All
of the allegations of the Amended Complaint portray a story which is at its heart
intentional and deliberate. The detail and depth of the story as set forth in the Amended
Complaint is entirely purposeful.
4. Duty to Defend
"Generally, the insurer's obligation to defend is determined by comparing the
allegations of the complaint with the relevant policy language." Garvis v. Employers
Mut. Cas. Co.. 497 N.W.2d 254, 256 (Minn. 1993) (citing Prahm v. Rupp Constr. Co.,
277 N.W.2d 389 (Minn. 1979)). "[Wjhere the insurer has no knowledge to the contrary, it
may make an initial determination of whether or not it is obligated to defend from the
facts alleged in the complaint against its insured." Garvis, 497 N.W.2d at 258 (citing
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Williams. 355 N.W.2d 421, 424-25 (Minn. 1984)). "Where
the pleadings do not raise a claim arguably within the scope of coverage, the insurer
has no duty to defend or investigate further to determine whether there are other facts
present which trigger such a duty." Garvis. 497 N.W.2d at 258 (citing Republic
vanguard Ins. Co. v. Buehl. 295 Minn. 327, 332-33, 204 N.W.2d 426, 429 (1973)).
However, if the insurer is aware of facts that give rise to a potential claim from "what is
Page 8 of 12
EXHIBIT J
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
5/7/2019 6:47 PM
said directly or inferentially in the complaint," from what the insured tells the insurer, or
from some independent source, "then the insurer must either accept tender of the
defense or further investigate the potential claim." Garvis, 497 N.W.2d at 258 (citing
Johnson v. Aid Ins. Co. of Pes Moines, Iowa. 287 N.W.2d 663, 665 (Minn. 1980)).
5. Umbrella Policy
The analysis of insurance coverage always begins with the burden of proof on the
policyholder to establish coverage in the first instance, and the burden of proof on the
insurer to establish the applicability of any exclusion or bar to coverage. An insurer has
the burden of proving a policy exclusion applies. Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442
N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn. 1989) citing Henning Nelson Const. Co, v. Fireman's Fund
American Life Ins. Co.. 383 N.W.2d 645, 652 (Minn.1986).The relevant exclusions in the
Umbrella Policy are:
EXCLUSIONS
There is no coverage under this policy for any:
14. bodily injury or property damage which is:
a. either expected or intended by the insured; or
b. the result of any willful and malicious act of the insured;
17. personal injury when the insured acts with specific intent to cause any harm;
(Gunderman Aff. Ex. 9, p. 9).
The Court is reasonably convinced for purposes of the instant motion, that there was a
plan by Ms. Evavold which had as its principal goal-the denial of parental rights of
David Rucki. This plan included ruin of the reputation of David Rucki and the
Page 9 of 12
EXHIBIT J
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State
State of
of Minnesota
Minnesota
5/7/2019 6:47 PM
sequestration of the 2 children, ostensibly for their protection. This plan resulted in
Evavold's conviction on 6 felony charges related to hiding the kids.
Missing from the analysis provided by State Farm's counsel is how to make the
case of Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Todd, 547 N.W. 2d 696 (Minn. 1996) fit the actual facts
of this case. It is to be remembered that Todd that in looking at insurance coverage, we
are to examine the "overall intentional plan" of the insured. In Todd, false imprisonment
(covered by insurance) was eclipsed by the Supreme Court's reasoning the insured's
'overall intentional plan' was to sexually abuse his daughter (excluded from insurance
coverage). While there was a barrage of incendiary, venomous, false, and hurtful
speech directed by Evavold at David Rucki, such that it would be hard to separate any
of it from an [intentional] plan to cause harm and thus excluded from coverage, the act
of hiding the girls has at its core a fundamentally different goal.
For purposes of this motion, this Court is characterizing the hiding of the two girls
from their father as being done—albiet wrongfully—for their protection. This
distinguishes the present case from Todd. The Todd Court found the false imprisonment
was "inextricably linked" (at 699) to the plan for sexual assault thus rendering a
presumptively covered portion of the conduct to an entirely uncovered event. State
Farm over reads the intent of the policyholder. Evavold continually seeks to assert a
position that her role in hiding the children was defensible under Minn. Stat. 609.226
Subd. 2 (which allows as a defense to a criminal charge of depriving custodial rights the
defense of hiding a child to prevent physical sexual or emotional harm of the child). In
other words, her hiding the kids based on her belief it was necessary for the kids
protection, breaks any type of link inextricable or otherwise to an intentional plan to
10
Page 10 of 12
EXHIBIT J
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State of Minnesota
5/7/2019 6:47 PM
cause harm. Perhaps more aptly stated, at this point the record leaves open factually
whether Evavold's purpose was part of an uncovered intentional plan or scheme; or fits
within the realm of a covered false imprisonment event. As a result, to this limited extent
there is a fact dispute concerning coverage under her Umbrella Policy as there are
claims asserted, inter alia in the underlying case that constitute "personal injury" within
the meaning of the definitions the Umbrella Policy. Notwithstanding that her assertion of
that defense was unsuccessful in the criminal case, it sufficiently distinguishes this case
from Todd. Notwithstanding the purported waiver for counts 1-5 the Court considers the
waiver from coverage was ineffective. There seems little in the way of commentary, or
for that matter consideration for the waiver of coverage.
As for the all of the defamation claims, as variously asserted, this Court reaches
the inescapable conclusion that Ms. Evavold sought specifically to harm Mr. Rucki. An
insured's intent can be inferred when the complaint alleges the defamation was done
"knowingly, maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth," and results in no
coverage under an intentional act exclusion. See Miller v. Junghans, 1998 WL202766,
at *2-3 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 1998).The Court finds the breadth and continued
assertions of these false statements against the Rucki's that intent to injure, based upon
the undisputed factual record of this case can be found, consistent with Farmers Ins,
Exchange v. Hallawav, 564 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1052 (D.Minn. 2008)
ORDER
1. Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
Summary Judgment is granted as Counts I, II, III, V, VI and VII.
11
Page 11 of 12
EXHIBIT J
19HA-CV-18-905
19HA-CV-18-905
Filed
Filed in
in District
District Court
Court
State of Minnesota
5/7/2019 6:47 PM
2. The Court finds there is a dispute of material fact concerning the allegations
contained in Count IV.
3. Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgement is denied as to Count IV
The parties are directed to meet and confer concerning ADR possibilities in light of the
Court's decision herein, and reply with their plan, if any, to pursue ADR and advise the
Court by May 20, 2019.
Dated: b>-i(o B^nTHE COURTS
J^rorrie B. Abrams 0
/Judge of District Court
12
Page 12 of 12
EXHIBIT J
State of Minnesota
District Court
County Judicial District: First

DAKOTA Court File Number: 19HA-CV-1 8-905 and
19HA-CV-1 8-4286
Judge Abrams Case Type: Civil/Other/Misc.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company;

David Rucki, Samantha Rucki, and Gianni Rucki
Plaintiffs,
v.
Affidavit of Service
Deirdre Evavold,
Defendant.
) SS
COUNTY OF STEARNS )
I, Darin Evavold, state that I'm at least 18 years of age having been born on June 1st, 1962 and that on
October 18, 2019, 1 served the following papers: Judge Abrams Correspondence upon Heidi Carstensen,
Dakota County Administrator, Lehoan T. Pham, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, and Attorney
Lisa Elliott on behalf of David Rucki, et. al. by electronically filing a true and correct copy of the
document via Tyler Technologies' File & Serve.
I declare under penalty of perjury that everything that I have stated in this document is true and correct.
Minn. Stat. § 358.1 16.
Dated: C<
Signature of Person Who Served Documents
Name: Darin Evavold
Address: 3015 30th Street Ct. South

City/State/Zip: St. Cloud, MN 56301
Telephone: (320) 293-6231
Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT K
October 18, 2019
VIA E-FILING
Judge Jerome Abrams

Dakota County Government Center
1560 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033
Re: State Farm v. David Rucki et. al. Court File No. 19HA-CV-1 8-905
David Rucki et. al. v. Deirdre Evavold Court File No. 19HA-CV-1 8-4286
Dear Judge Abrams,
I'm writing in response to the Counterclaim submitted by Attorneys Lehoan Pham and Todd
Koebele o/b/o State Farm and the request for a favorable judgment in the Declaratory Judgment
action, both dated Oct. 7, 2019.
First and foremost, I want to address Attorney Lehoan Pham's misrepresentation that I
improperly served the "Counterclaim" on State Farm's counsel. Mr. Pham indicated that it was
untimely and was emailed to State Farm's counsel on September 16, 2019, rather than served
and filed through Odyssey. I served the Answer and Counterclaim via Tyler Technologies' File &
Serve on February 12, 2019. See below:
02/12/2019 Answer Index #35

02/12/2019 Affidavit of Service Index #36
02/12/2019 e-Service
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Served 02/12/2019
02/12/2019 e-Service
Rucki, David V. Served 02/12/2019
I emailed the counterclaim to Lehoan Pham as HKM changed the counsel of record from Todd
Koebele and Kari Gunderman to Lehoan Pham on August 19, 2019. I didn't know if he had
received this document when the case was transferred.
As I brought to your attention in my correspondence dated June 21 , 201 9, Attorney Lisa Elliott
o/b/o Plaintiff David Rucki actually filed the Answer in response to my counterclaim in an
untimely manner. I filed my Counterclaim on November 6, 2018 and she filed the Answer on July
12, 2019, well past the 20-day timeline. Pursuant to Rule 55, this should have resulted in a
default judgment.
In my letter dated September 27, 2019, I did indicate that I would no longer be defending the
underlying action and the declaratory judgment action. The reason for my withdrawal is because
the underlying suit has NO underlying justification in fact and there has been no adherence to
the rules of civil procedure. David Rucki and his attorney Lisa Elliott are fabricating losses for the
deliberate purpose of obtaining an insurance payout which is fraud, pure and simple.
Also, actions taken by State Farm's counsel Todd Koebele, Kari Gunderman and Lehoan Pham
have violated my personal liability contract agreement as well as Rule 1 1(b) by causing
unnecessary delay, harassment and needlessly increasing the cost of litigation. This is not a
factual dispute. It's a legal issue as to the contract. I have had to fight a two-front war by litigating
coverage issues as well as the underlying lawsuit. This has complicated matters and created an
unnecessary burden against me, both financially and in defending myself as a pro se litigant. I
did not purchase the liability policy to litigate with my own insurance company.
In my June 21 , 2019 letter to the Court, I addressed the fact that Attorney Kari Gunderman from
HKM had written, "the mediation process is unlikely to be successful given the coverage issues
surrounding the false imprisonment claim in the underlying suit. Accordingly, the parties (Rucki's
counsel and State Farm) jointly agree that ADR would not be beneficial in this case." This begs
the question as to why any of the parties would engage in mediation when it wouldn't be
beneficial.
This also leads to the reason that we will not be participating in any fact-finding depositions. The
facts are already there to determine the legal issues as to the liability. The depositions are
merely to conduct a fishing expedition and are clearly being requested to further harass me. Mr.
Lehoan states in the October 7th Counterclaim, "Upon information and belief, State Farm
disagrees with Mrs. Evavold's characterization of what led to the taking and concealing of
Samantha and Gianna Rucki, and thus denies the same; and State Farm disagrees with Mrs.
Evavold's characterization of her criminal proceeding, and thus denies the same." A deposition is
not going to change our testimony and again, I have provided sufficient information to FIKM and
State Farm to conclude that there is a claim for arguable coverage.
That the Court relieved State Farm of its coverage obligations of Counts I, II, III, V, VI and VII in
the underlying action does not mean that I agree with the findings. Count VI in the Amended
Complaint is a Defamation and Defamation per se claim. In the May 16, 2019 Summary
Judgment, the Court stated, "As for all of the defamation claims, as variously asserted, this Court
reaches the inescapable conclusion that Ms. Evavold sought specifically to harm Mr. Rucki. An
insured's intent can be inferred when the complaint alleges the defamation was done "knowingly,
maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth," and results in no coverage under an
intentional act exclusion. See Miller v. Junqhans, 1998 WL202766, at *2-3 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr.
28, 1998). The Court find the breadth and continued assertions of these false statements against
the Rucki's that intent to injure, based upon the undisputed factual record of this can be found,
consistent with Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Hallawav, 564 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1052 (D.Minn. 2008)
I have never been given an opportunity to be heard on this matter in the lawsuit or false
harassment restraining order. Without findings of fact, the denial of coverage for this claim
is without any factual foundation. To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four
things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that
statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some
harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
David Rucki did not prove any of the elements and if the statements are true, the defamation
lawsuit ends there. At the February 22, 2019 Summary Judgment Hearing, the Court also
indicated that if the statements are true, there is no liability.
In the May 2019 Summary Judgment, the Court found a dispute of material fact concerning the
allegations contained in Count IV, which is false imprisonment. "The Court is reasonably
convinced for purposes of the instant motion, that there was a plan by Ms. Evavold which had as
its principal goal-the denial of parental rights of David Rucki. This plan included ruin of the
reputation of David Rucki and the sequestration of the 2 children, ostensibly for their protection."
Again, the Court is making faulty inferences based only on assumptions. I have been denied due
process in all proceedings as I have been denied the right to support any of the allegations by
arguments, however brief and by proof however informal.
The Court also wrote, "Evavold continually seeks to assert a position that her role in hiding the
children was defensible under Minn. Stat. 609.226, Subd. 2 (which allows as a defense to a
criminal charge of depriving custodial rights the defense of hiding a child to prevent physical,
sexual or emotional harm of the child). In other words, her hiding the kids based on her belief it
was necessary for the kids' protection, breaks any type of link inextricable or otherwise to an
intentional plan to cause harm. Perhaps more aptly stated, at this point the record leaves open
factually whether Evavold's purpose was part of an uncovered intentional plan or scheme; or fits
within the realm of a covered false imprisonment event."
Summary judgment is purely a matter of law; the court accepts the relevant facts as presented
by the party opposing summary judgment and renders a decision based on the applicable legal
principles. Even if State Farm believes the claim isn't covered due to the intentional act
exclusion, they had a duty to defend until they could demonstrate the claim wasn't covered and
the exclusion status had been resolved.
By allowing the personal injury suit and the declaratory judgment action to proceed
simultaneously would force State Farm to attempt to prove that my acts were intentional to avoid
the duty to defend, which would incriminate me for the lawsuit.
As the policyholder, I only needed to establish the potential for coverage to give rise to State
Farm's duty to defend. Neither adjudicated facts nor the ultimate basis for liability is relevant to
the determination of the duty to defend. The Personal Liability Policy contains explicit "duty to
defend" wording which obligates State Farm to assume control of the claim defense process.
" The liability portion of every business, homeowner, auto or similar insurance policy is the
portion of the policy that protects you from lawsuits by others. It requires the insurance company
to pay your legal defense costs and fees if you are sued. It must defend you in any situation
which potentially seeks covered damages. Furthermore, if the insurance company learns of facts
from any source which would trigger coverage (not just the complaint itself), it must also defend
you. In addition, it must defend where the policyholder has a reasonable expectation that it will
do so." Badfaithinsurance.org
The insured who has been sued has no control over the allegations of the complaint. We think
the better rule is that, if the insurer is advised by the insured what he claims the facts to be or the
insurer by an independent investigation ascertains that the facts are in conflict with a complaint,
and, if established, will present a potential liability on the part of the insured covered by the
insurance contract, the insurer is obligated to undertake the defense the duty to defend. Crum v.
Anchor Cas. Co., 119 N.W.2d 703, 712 (Minn. 1963).
In State Farm's October 7, 2019 letter, Todd Koebele writes, "It is our understanding by Mrs.
Evavold's recent communications to the parties, to Mediator (former) Magistrate Judge Boylan,
and to your Honor that she intends to relinquish any claims for coverage under her Homeowners
and Personal Liability Umbrella Policies. To that end, if Mrs. Evavold is willing to formally
stipulate that she is seeking no benefits under the aforementioned policies, State Farm would
then move to request that the Court enter judgment in its favor in the declaratory judgment
action."
I am not relinquishing any claims for coverage under my Personal Liability Umbrella Policy and I
will not formally stipulate to an agreement seeking no benefits.
I have only indicated that I would no longer be defending either case due to the above reasons
and the inherent conflict that has been created in these cases.
The Court has been partial to the Attorneys for State Farm as well as Attorney Lisa Elliott o/b/o
David Rucki in these cases. Basically, State Farm is being given a free pass to avoid abiding by
a legally binding contract. Also, I have never committed a crime, yet I have been incarcerated
twice. Mr. Rucki has committed multiple crimes and he has never been incarcerated. Clearly,
this is the reason why the Plaintiffs are fighting so hard to have this lawsuit remain in Dakota
County and why I am done attempting to defend these actions. The dispute is now between
State Farm and David Rucki.
Va^/ Date:
-f
Deirdre Evavold
Cc: Lisa Elliott (via e-service)

Todd Koebele o/b/o State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (via e-service)
Lehoan Pham o/b/o State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (via e-service)
\\X DO-
51,)-
% -m
JEROME B. ABRAMS CARVER, DAKOTA. GOODHUE. LeSUEUR.
{~S>.
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Vi McLEOD. SCOTT AND SIBLEY COUNTIES
DAKOTA COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER REPORTER : <65 I 438-804 I

law clerk: <65 i 40O-6O4O
1560 WEST HIGHWAY 55 TAX: <65 1 438-8 3 2 7
HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033
STATE OF MINNESOTA
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
October 11,2019
Rucki v. Evavold, et al. 19HA-CV-18-4286.
State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Rucki, et al. 19HA-CV-1 8-905
Greetings:
I have received communications in both of the above cases. It indicates inter alia Diedre Evavold
per her letter to the Court of September 27, 2019, will no longer participate in either case. I
assume she did not appear at the Court ordered mediation on October 1, 2019.
People are entitled to "quit" participation in lawsuits, at their peril.
All parties are directed to advise the Court not later than October 16, 2019 how they propose to
proceed in these cases.
Sincerely,
A/ Jerome B. Abrams
Judge of District Court
OCT 1 7 2019
Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT L
7/23/2019 2:34 PM
Dakota County, MN
Plaintiff,
VS.
AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEO
David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki; DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT DEIRDRE
Gianna Rucki; Sandra Sue Grazzini- ELISE EVAVOLD
Defendants.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the videotaped deposition of Deirdre Elise Evavold,
by oral examination, will be taken before a court reporter or qualified notary public, at
the law offices of Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd., 11 7h Avenue North, Saint Cloud,
Minnesota 56303, on the 13th day of August, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., and thereafter by
adjournment until the same shall be completed.
Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT M
19HA-CV-18-905
HKM, P.A.
ii:jy'
C. Todd Koebel&lii7287X
Kari L. Gunderman, #0317299
Saint Paul, MN 55101
(651) 227-9411
Attorneys for Plaintiff State Farm
kgunderman@hkmlawgroup.com
4817-1702-4669, V. 1
Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT M
Todd Koebele, Attorney at Law
Kari L. Gunderman, Attorney at Law
HKM, P.A.
St. Paul, MN 55101 4919
P 651 227 9411
Re: Court File No.: 19-HA-CV-18-4286

Matter of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company vs. David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki,
Gianna Rucki, Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, Deirdre Elise Evavold et. al
August 8, 2019
Mr. Koebele and Ms. Gunderman,
My husband Darin and I will not be attending your events scheduled on August 13° and
14h at the law offices of Rajkowski Hansmeier in St. Cloud, MN.
We will not be submitting to a deposition until coverage is determined.
Excerpt from Judge Abram's order dated 5-16-2019: "The parties are directed to meet
and confer concerning ADR possibilities." Judge Abrams also notified all parties that he
expects all parties to proceed in good faith with the mediation.
We are mediating these issues per the judge's directive and we will see you on Oct. 1,
2019 at Arthur J. Boylan ADR.
3015 30° Street Ct. South

St. Cloud, MN 56301
Ph: 320-293-6233
AUG 1 2 2019
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT N
Lehoan "Hahn" Pham
From: Arthur Boylan <boylanadr@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 11:29 AM
To: Todd Koebele
Cc: lisa@elliottlaw.net; dedeevavold@hotmail.com; Lehoan "Hahn" Pham
Subject: Re: State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Deirdre Evavold, et al. and David Rucki et
al. v. Deirdre Evavold et al.: Joint Mediation Currently Scheduled for 10/1/2019, 9:30 AM
Thank you.
Hon. Arthur J. Boylan (ret.)

Mediation & ADR Services
310 South Fourth Avenue
Suite 5010
Minneapolis, MN 55415
O- 612-206-3730
C- 612-387-5655
On Sep 27, 2019, at 8:17 AM, Todd Koebele <tkoebele@hkmlawgroup.com> wrote:
Judge Boylan, I circulated a call in number for 3:30 CDT. Hopefully that works for everyone.
Todd
_____________________________________________
From: Arthur Boylan <boylanadr@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 5:04 PM
To: Todd Koebele <TKoebele@hkmlawgroup.com>
Cc: lisa@elliottlaw.net; dedeevavold@hotmail.com; Lehoan "Hahn" Pham <LPham@hkmlawgroup.com>
Subject: Re: State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Deirdre Evavold, et al. and David Rucki et al. v.
Deirdre Evavold et al.: Joint Mediation Currently Scheduled for 10/1/2019, 9:30 AM
I’m available tomorrow morning before 11:00 AM. Also tomorrow afternoon between 1:00 - 4:00
PM. My cell # is the best way to reach me.
Thanks,
AJB
Hon. Arthur J. Boylan (ret.)
Mediation & ADR Services
310 South Fourth Avenue
Suite 5010
Minneapolis, MN 55415
O- 612-206-3730
C- 612-387-5655
1
Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT O
On Sep 26, 2019, at 9:39 AM, Todd Koebele <tkoebele@hkmlawgroup.com> wrote:
Dear Judge Boylan
We write to you to discuss the above captioned lawsuits, which are

currently set for a joint mediation on October 1, 2019, 9:30 AM, at our
offices in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Judge Jerome Abrams—who presides over the declaratory judgment

action and underlying action—issued the enclosed Order. In sum, Judge
Abrams granted State Farm’s and the Ruckis’ Joint Motion to Compel, in
its entirety. Judge Abrams found that State Farm’s and the Ruckis’
request to depose Mr. and Mrs. Evavold to comport with the scope of
discovery. Judge Abrams also denied Mrs. Evavold’s affirmative motions
to stay the proceedings and to transfer venue. Judge Abrams further
instructed that the parties must complete the depositions of Mr. and
Mrs. Evavold “prior to mediation.”
We respectfully request a short conference call with you and all parties
to discuss whether we should postpone the currently scheduled
mediation, so that the parties have time to complete Mr. and Mrs.
Evavolds’ depositions.
Todd
This e-mail and any attachments to it may be privileged, confidential or contain trade secret information. If this e-mail
was sent to you in error, please notify me immediately by either reply e-mail or by phone at 651-227-9411. Please do
not use, disseminate, retain, print or copy the e-mail or its attachment. You will be reimbursed for any reasonable
expenses associated with destroying this e-mail and its attachments.
<image001.jpg>
<StateFarmvRuckiRucki and Rucki Rucki v Grazzini-RuckiEvavold (FCO).pdf>
2
This e-mail and any attachments to it may be privileged, confidential or contain trade secret information. If this e-mail was sent to you in
error, please notify me immediately by either reply e-mail or by phone at 651-227-9411. Please do not use, disseminate, retain, print or copy
the e-mail or its attachment. You will be reimbursed for any reasonable expenses associated with destroying this e-mail and its attachments.
<mime-attachment.ics>
3
7/23/2019 2:34 PM
Dakota County, MN
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEO
David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki; DEPOSITION OF DARIN EVAVOLD
Gianna Rucki; Sandra Sue Grazzini-
Defendants.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the videotaped deposition of Darin Evavold, by oral
examination, will be taken before a court reporter or qualified notary public, at the law
offices of HKM, Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd., 11 7th Avenue North, Saint Cloud,
Minnesota 56303, on the 14th day of August, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., and thereafter by
adjournment until the same shall be completed.
Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT P
19HA-CV-18-905
HKM, P.A.
.£ad'%
Kari L. Gunderman, #0317299
Saint Paul, MN 55101
(651) 227-9411
Attorneys for Plaintiff State Farm
kgunderman@hkmlawgroup.com
4844-0491-8173, v. 1
Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT P

Affidavit of Lehoan T. Pham in Support of Memorandum On Outstanding Issues and Proposed Scheduling Order

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Affidavit of Lehoan T. Pham in Support of Memorandum On Outstanding Issues and Proposed Scheduling Order

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Type of Case: Civil Other/Misc.

David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki;

1. I am an attorney representing State Farm Fire and Casualty

Company (“State Farm”) in the above-captioned matter. I offer this Affidavit

in support of State Farm’s Memorandum on the Outstanding Issues and

Proposed Scheduling Order.

3. That attached and marked as Exhibit B is a true and correct

4. That attached and marked as Exhibit C is a true and correct

copy of the Second Amended Notice of Taking Video Deposition of Ms.

5. That attached and marked as Exhibit D is a true and correct

copy of Ms. Evavold’s letter dated October 24, 2019.

6. That attached and marked as Exhibit E is a true and correct

his email (dated October 28, 2019) to State Farm.

7. That attached and marked as Exhibit F is a true and correct

copy of the Personal Liability Umbrella Policy.

8. That attached and marked as Exhibit G is a true and correct

9. That attached and marked as Exhibit H is a true and correct

emails dated November 1, 4, and 12, 2019, and December 2, 2019.

10. That attached and marked as Exhibit I is a true and correct

copy of the Court’s Order, dated May 16, 2019.

12. That attached and marked as Exhibit K is a true and correct

13. That attached and marked as Exhibit L is a true and correct

14. That attached and marked as Exhibit M is a true and correct

copy of the Amended Notice of Taking Video Deposition of Ms. Evavold.

15. That attached and marked as Exhibit N is a true and correct

copy of Ms. Evavold’s letter dated August 8, 2019 to State Farm.

16. That attached and marked as Exhibit O is a true and correct

parties and (ret.) Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan.

17. That attached and marked as Exhibit P is a true and correct

copy of the Amended Notice of Taking Video Deposition of Mr. Evavold.

FURTHER YOUR AFFIDAVIT SAYETH NOT.

Subscribed and sworn to before me

Notice of Filing of Order

You are notified that an order was filed on this date.

Dated: November 5, 2019 Heidi Carstensen

cc: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki

MNCIS-CIV-139 STATE Notice of Filing of Order Rev. 09/2013

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki, Gianna Rucki;

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

David V. Rucki, Samantha Rucki, Court File No. 19HA-CV- 18-4286

Sandra Sue Grazzini Rucki; Deidre Elise Evavold;

Court within thirty (30) days of the filing of this order.

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

File No. 19HACV—18—905

David V. Rucki; Samantha Rucki; Gianna

David Rucki, Samantha Rucki, Gianna Rucki, File No. 19HACV—18—4286

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

joined in the motions in the underlying action (19HA—CV—18—4286). Defendant Deirdre

Evavold also filed a counter—motion.

Attorney C. Todd Koebele appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff State Farm.

Gianna Rucki. David V. Rucki was personally present.

Mrs. Evavold did not appear at the hearing.

1. There is an underlying action in which Defendants Rucki commenced an action

intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) negligent infliction of emotional

distress; (4) false imprisonment; (5) intentional interference with custodial

defamation perse; and (7) defamation by implication. (Amended Complaint, Dakota

County Court File No. 19HA—CV-18—4286).