1. Identify and describe each and every way that Popovich or Mast breached any duty of care to you, the date of the breach, and when and how you became aware of the breach. ANSWER: MAST told DULBERG at a meeting in which DULBERG was trying to decide whether to accept the MCGUIRE's offer of $5,000 that because the restatement of torts 318 is not applicable in Illinois, DULBERG had no case against the MCGUIRES and that the MCGUIRES did not have to offer any settlement at all. DULBERG asked MAST to cite case law that shows why the MCGUIRES were not at least partially liable for DULBERG'S injury, and MAST cited Tilscher v Spangler, a case which confirms that restatement of torts 318 is not applicable in Illinois. Mast also gave Dulberg information on some other cases. Those papers are included in the documents being given to opposing counsel. At the same meeting MAST also informed DULBERG that the MCGUIRES made an offer of $5,000 to be nice (they did not have to offer anything) and if DULBERG did not accept the offer it would be withdrawn and the MCGUIRES will ask for summary judgement. MAST informed DULBERG that the presiding judge would grant the MCGUIRES a summary judgement dismissing the case against them, leaving DULBERG with no settlement at all from the MCGUIRES. Mast also told Dulberg that settling with the McGuires would not affect his ability to recover the full amount for his injuries since he could recover the full amount from the Gagnon lawsuit alone. The dates of these exchanges are given in Dulberg's answer to the next question. Dulberg first became aware that Mast's plan of action could be incorrect when he contacted other law firms while terminating his relationship with Mast. Dulberg was informed by other law firms that their opinion is that dropping the lawsuit against the McGuires was a mistake. When Dulberg hired the Baudin Law firm they also informed him that they believe that settling the lawsuit against the McGuires was a mistake. Dulberg first learned that Mast's plan of action resulted in a loss of what Dulberg was finally able to recover when the arbitration judge awarded Dulberg much more than he was able to collect through the Gagnon lawsuit alone. 2. Identify the date and location of any discussion between you and Mast in which Mast represented to you that there was no possibility of any liability against William or Caroline McGuire and/or Auto Owners Insurance Company, and identify what you said to Mast, and what he said to you. ANSWER: Through email/text exchanges, 2 meetings in Mast's office, and possibly through telephone conversations. The emails/texts are all available through the documents Mast is to release through the discovery process. Dulberg has a copy of the email exchanges but Dulberg's copy may be incomplete. The emails are from October/November, 2013 through January, 2014. The first meeting in Mast's office was on November 04, 2013. The participants were Mast, Paul Dulberg, and Barbara DUlberg (Paul Dulberg's mother) The second meeting was just before Christmas of 2013. The participants were Mast, Paul Dulberg, and Thomas Kost (Paul DUlberg's brother). It was at this second meeting that MAST told DULBERG that because the restatement of torts 318 is not applicable in Illinois, DULBERG had no case against the MCGUIRES and that the MCGUIRES did not have to offer any settlement at all. DULBERG asked MAST to cite case law that shows why the MCGUIRES were not at least partially liable for DULBERG'S injury, and MAST cited Tilscher v Spangler, a case which confirms that restatement of torts 318 is not applicable in Illinois. Mast also gave Dulberg information on some other cases. Those papers are included in the documents being given to opposing counsel. At the same meeting MAST also informed DULBERG that the MCGUIRES made an offer of $5,000 to be nice (they did not have to offer anything) and if DULBERG did not accept the offer it would be withdrawn and the MCGUIRES will ask for summary judgement. MAST informed DULBERG that the presiding judge would grant the MCGUIRES a summary judgement dismissing the case against them, leaving DULBERG with no settlement at all from the MCGUIRES. Mast also told Dulberg that settling with the McGuires would not affect his ability to recover the full amount for his injuries since he could recover the full amount from the Gagnon lawsuit alone. 3. Identify the other property owned by the McGuire’s as alleged in paragraph 50 of your Second Amended Complaint. ANSWER: There was no evidence in the case file from Mast that an asset check was ever conducted by Mast. Dulberg learned from both McGuires on the day of the accident that the McGuires owned their home with cars and trucks. Caroline McGuire receives social security retirement and a pension from Intermatic Incorporated. William McGuire received a large settlement from a workmans comp claim and a personal injury lawsuit from a job related personal injury. William McGuire also receives social security disability benefits Dulberg was also told by the McGuires that the McGuires purchased a diesel truck with a fifth wheel for pulling their newly acquired camper to a large acreage property with a gold claim they purchased out west and that the McGuires were going to vacation out there and do Gold prospecting on their land. 4. When did you or your attorneys (following the withdrawal by Popovich and Mast) first learn that the McGuire’s had an insurance policy that potentially would have covered the claim for an amount greater than $100,000? ANSWER: Dulberg assumed the McGuires had an insurance policy because Caroline turned over her insurance information to Dulberg the day of the accident and the McGuires were represented by an attorney with Auto-Owners Insurance. Dulberg repeatedly asked Mast for the insurance information and was never given a response. When Mast turned over the case file there was no evidence that Mast had ever inquired into the details of the McGuire or Gagnon policies. The case files from Mast had no information whatsoever about either insurance policy. Dulberg's subsequent attorneys did not look into the assets of the McGuires as the McGuires were no longer part of the case.