The plaintiff was injured in an auto accident while in the course and scope of his employment and he received worker’s compensation benefits. He then sued the other driver. The worker’s compensation insurer joined as a subrogated plaintiff pursuant to Wis. Stat. sec. 102.29. Prior to trial the defendant offered to settle the case. When the plaintiff refused, the worker’s compensation insurer moved the court to compel the plaintiff to accept the offer, arguing that under Bergren v. Staples, 263 Wis. 477, 57 N.W.2d 714 (1953), the circuit court had discretion to order the plaintiff to accept the settlement offer. The plaintiff asserted that Bergren involved the converse of the situation here—where a plaintiff wanted to settle but the worker’s compensation insurer refused—and that he should therefore not be compelled to settle the case. The circuit court agreed with the worker’s compensation insurer and compelled the plaintiff to accept the defendant’s settlement offer, and the plaintiff appealed to the court of appeals. ... >> Read More...

Plaintiffs purchased a home which they felt was not habitable. They were in the process of renovating the home when it was destroyed in an explosion and fire. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs had not yet spent the night in the home, though the court noted that they were on the property “almost daily”. The issue in the case was whether the home was an “occupied dwelling”, per Wis. Stat. sec. 632.05(2), which requires an insurer to pay the policy limits to an insured whose owned and occupied dwelling is totally destroyed.>> Read More...

The plaintiff sued the defendant for wrongful death. His son, with whom he had little contact, died while in the son’s mother’s vehicle allegedly due to the negligence of the mother. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not maintain a wrongful death cause of action because he was estranged from and had abandoned his son. The plaintiff asserted that he did not voluntarily abandon his son but rather was prevented from ever seeing him by the mother’s family members, that he had attempted numerous times to become involved in his son’s life, and that he was in the process of saving money to hire a family law lawyer when his son died. The circuit court agreed with the defendant and granted summary judgment, holding that a father who is estranged from his child has no claim for loss of society and companionship and, therefore, no claim for wrongful death. The plaintiff appealed to the court of appeals. ... >> Read More...

The issue before the court was whether the claims made in the plaintiff’s amended complaint related back to the original complaint as the statute of limitations had passed. The plaintiff had fallen on the icy parking lot at a roller rink, Skateland. The plaintiff filed a complaint against Skateland as the operator of the roller rink within the statute of limitations. The complaint did not state any claims against the owner of the premises.>> Read More...

The plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries sustained in a car accident. The defendant’s insured had loaned his car to his daughter who in turn loaned the car to her boyfriend, Jesse Raddatz. Raddatz was given permission to run an errand, but instead picked up the plaintiff and was driving to a party when the car accident occurred. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s automobile liability policy covered Raddatz's negligence because he had permissive use of the car. The case went to trial on a permissive use coverage question where a jury found that Raddatz had exceeded the scope of permission and there was no coverage. The plaintiff then brought a negligent entrustment claim and the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that under the independent concurrent cause rule the plaintiff’s claim for negligent entrustment—a covered risk—was barred because it depended upon the occurrence of Raddatz’s negligence, which was an excluded risk. The circuit court agreed with the defendant and granted summary judgment.>> Read More...