<?xml version="1.0"?>
		<rss version="2.0">
		  <channel>
			<title>Subscribe to RSS Feed</title>
			<link>http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/tools/blocks/page_list/rss?bID=102&amp;amp;cID=63&amp;amp;arHandle=Core Content</link>
			<description></description> 
			<item>
			  <title>Court Creates Fourth Scenario for Bad Faith</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/court-creates-fourth-scenario-for-bad-faith/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>The Wisconsin Supreme Court set forth a novel cause of action
for bad faith in a situation where the verdict did not exceed
the policy limits, 'Roehl Transport, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company', 2010 WI 49 (2008AP1303). Previously, the
three recognized causes of action for bad faith were premised
upon: (1) the insurance company’s failure to settle the claim
with a third party-claimant when the ultimate judgment exposed
the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits; (2)
the insurer unreasonably and in bad faith withheld payment of
the claim of its insured; and (3) the insurance company failed
to reimburse the claimant for a worker’s compensation claim.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:28:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Statute of Repose Applies in Absence of Express Warranty or Negligence</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/statute-of-repose-applies-in-absence-of-express-warranty-or-negligence/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>from 'Hocking v. City of Dodgeville' 2010 WI 59 (2008AP2812)
¶2 The specific issue before us is whether either of two
exceptions contained in §893.89 apply and therefore allow the
Hockings' suit to proceed.(3) First, the Hockings allege that
the City expressly warranted or guaranteed the improvement to
real property under §893.89(4)(b). The Hockings also assert that
the City was negligent in the maintenance, operation, or
inspection of the improvement to real property under
§893.89(4)(c). If either of these two exceptions applies, the
ten-year statute of repose would not bar the Hockings' suit.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:15:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Concealing CT Scan Not Subject to Discovery Extension of Malpractice Statute of Limitations</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/concealing-ct-scan-not-subject-to-discovery-extension-of-malpractice-statute-of-limitations/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In 'Mehra v. Chang' (2009AP13), the plaintiff sued the
defendants for medical malpractice following treatment for a
head injury sustained on April 1, 2003. The plaintiff had two CT
scans of her brain: one on April 1, 2003, and another on May 12,
2003. The plaintiff alleged that she suffered a blood clot from
her injury that was indicated on the May 12, 2003, CT scan and
that the doctors intentionally concealed this fact from her. The
plaintiff further alleged that the doctors' negligence resulted
in a heart attack that she suffered on December 10, 2006. The
plaintiff waited until January 22, 2008, to file suit and the
circuit court dismissed her action because she failed to
establish by competent expert evidence that the doctors breached
the standard of care and because she failed to develop her
respondeat superior theory.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:17:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Supreme Court Argument in 'Brethorst v. Allstate' September 7, 2010</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/supreme-court-argument-in-brethorst-v-allstate-september-7-2010/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>This certification ['Brethorst v. Allstate Property &amp; Casualty
Ins.' (2008AP2595)] asks the Supreme Court to review the
required legal procedures involved in settling a dispute between
an insurance company and a client over an uninsured motorist
claim.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:43:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Arbitration Provisions Can Prohibit Jury Trial, but Not Class Actions</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/arbitration-provisions-can-prohibit-jury-trial-but-not-class-actions/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In ‘Cottonwood Financial v. Estes’ (2009AP760) the plaintiff
sued the defendant in small claims court for an unpaid payday
loan debt, and the defendant counterclaimed alleging violation
of the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The plaintiff then moved for a
stay of proceedings and an order compelling arbitration pursuant
to an arbitration agreement that was part of every payday loan
contract.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:44:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Pries v. McMillon: Dissent Accuses Majority of Partly Basing a Ministerial Duty on Unwritten Safety Procedures</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/pries-v-mcmillon-dissent-accuses-majority-of-partly-basing-a-ministerial-duty-on-unwritten-safety-procedures/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In a recent decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revisited the
&quot;ministerial duty&quot; exception to governmental immunity. In 'Pries
v. McMillon', 2010 WI 63, (2008AP89) a majority of the court
found that a state employee was not entitled to immunity for
negligently disassembling horse stalls at the Wisconsin State
Fair Park. According to the dissent, however, the decision opens
up a can of worms by finding a ministerial duty in part based on
unwritten procedures.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:08:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Alleged Failure to Disclose Need for Additional Treatment does not Extend Malpractice Statute of Repose</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/alleged-failure-to-disclose-need-for-additional-treatment-does-not-extend-malpractice-statute-of-repose/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In 'Pagoudis v. Korkos' (2008AP2965)k the plaintiff had sued the
defendant for medical malpractice, alleging that the defendant
failed to inform him of a final pathology report and failed to
require follow-up care associated with his medical condition.
The plaintiff had undergone medical treatment in the year 2000
and did not seek follow-up care, but he claimed that he was not
told of the final pathology report or need for additional
treatment.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Building Not Safe-Place Law &quot;place of employment&quot; of Repairman</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/building-not-safe-place-law-place-of-employment-of-repairman/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In 'Anthony v. Erie Insurance' (2009AP259), the plaintiff had
sued his landlord and a repairman for negligently repairing and
maintaining the property he rented, and for violation of the
Wisconsin Safe-Place Law, Wis. Stat. §101.11, alleging that he
sustained injuries when a handrail gave way and caused him to
fall down a stairwell. The defendants moved for summary judgment
on the safe place claim, arguing that the rental duplex was not
covered by the safe place statute.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:39:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Claim for Agent's Negligence Requires Potential Coverage</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/claim-for-agent-s-negligence-requires-potential-coverage/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>&quot;This appeal concerns a negligence claim by Watertown Tire
Recyclers against an insurance agent for the agent's alleged
failure to procure a policy that protected Watertown against a
substantial and anticipated risk, a stockpile tire fire....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:14:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Stop and Check is Hit and Run for UM Coverage</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/stop-and-check-is-hit-and-run-for-um-coverage/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In 'Zarder v. Acuity', 2010 WI 35, (2008AP919) the plaintiff
sued the defendant for uninsured motorist (UM) coverage after he
sustained injuries when he was struck by a car driven by an
unidentified motorist while riding his bicycle. After striking
the plaintiff, the three occupants of the vehicle got out of the
car, approached the plaintiff, and asked him if he was all
right. The plaintiff assured the occupants that he was all right
and the occupants returned to their car and left. Later that
night, the plaintiff's family contacted the police and reported
the accident. The police investigated the accident but could not
identify the vehicle owner. The investigation was not conducted
as a hit-and-run accident.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:30:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>New Law Against Texting While Driving: A Safety Statutue That Holds Violators Negligent Per Se?</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/new-law-against-texting-while-driving-a-safety-statutue-that-holds-violators-negligent-per-se/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>Governor Jim Doyle signed into law 2009 Assembly Bill 496,
effective December 1, 2010, which prohibits composing and
sending a text message while driving and imposes a fine of
between $20 and $400. The law provides exceptions for drivers of
emergency vehicles, for drivers using global positioning
devices, and for drivers who text via voice recognition
equipment. Anyone outside of these exceptions may be ticketed
solely for texting while driving. Wisconsin is the 25th state to
pass such legislation.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:27:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Insurance Coverage and the Independent Concurrent Cause Rule</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/insurance-coverage-and-the-independent-concurrent-cause-rule/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In 'Siebert v. Wisconsin American Mutual Ins. Co.' (2009AP1422)
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 a friend, 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. Under
the policy, Raddatz's negligence would be covered if he was an
insured person which, in this case, would entail permission to
operate the vehicle and not exceeding the scope of that
permission. 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.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Excess liability insurer found to have duty to defend based on &quot;follow form&quot; provision of policy</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/excess-liability-insurer-found-to-have-duty-to-defend-based-on-follow-form-provision-of-policy/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>The issue efore the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 'Johnson Controls
Inc. v. London Market' (2007AP1868) was whether London Market,
which issued an excess umbrella liability policy to Johnson
Controls, had a duty to defend in response to an environmental
pollution clean-up claim. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled
that the insurer did have a duty to defend. Part of the
significance of the ruling is that there was no explicit “duty
to defend” provision in the London Market policy. Instead, the
policy stated that it provided excess indemnity coverage after
the exhaustion of underlying liability coverage. Nevertheless,
the supreme court held that London Market had a duty to defend
based on its policy’s “follow form” provision, which states
“this policy is subject to the same terms, definitions,
exclusions, and conditions (….except as otherwise provided
herein) as are contained in [the underlying policies].”....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:52:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Declaratory Judgments – Criminal Statutes – Evidence</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/declaratory-judgments-criminal-statutes-evidence/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In 'Braun v. City of Wauwatosa' (2009AP839) the plaintiff sued
the defendants for false arrest and personal injuries from
alleged use of excessive force during his arrest for trespass to
land. The plaintiff also sought a declaratory judgment pursuant
to Wis. Stat. §806.04(2) to &quot;determine the extent and
parameters&quot; of the term &quot;occupant&quot; as used in §943.13, the
criminal statute defining what constitutes trespass to land.
The defendants moved to dismiss the declaratory judgment action
on the grounds that characterizations of the plaintiff’s
behavior would be determined in his pending appeal of the
criminal violations, and that the civil suit was not the proper
forum to provide clarification on past and future conduct. The
circuit court agreed and dismissed the declaratory judgment
action. The suit proceeded to a jury trial determining the
remaining issues of false arrest and use of excessive force, and
the plaintiff was precluded from admitting evidence concerning
his opinion about his prior ban from the property by the
property owners.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:21:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Wisconsin Supreme Court Issues Decision Affecting Arbitration Agreements</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/wisconsin-supreme-court-issues-decision-affecting-arbitration-agreements/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling July 8, 2010 in 'Estate of
Robert C. Parker v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc.', 2010 WI 71
(2008AP2440-LV), makes clear appellate courts have the ability
to review orders compelling arbitration.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:10:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>The Court of Appeals Revisits the Subrogation and Collateral Source Rules: Extends ‘Paulson v. Allstate Ins. Co.’ to Arbitration Context</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/the-court-of-appeals-revisits-the-subrogation-and-collateral-source-rules-extends-paulson-v-allstate-ins-co-to-arbitration-context/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In one of the few published insurance cases so far this year,
'Fischer v. Steffen', 2010 WI App 68 (2009AP1669), the court of
appeals revisited the interplay between two recurring issues in
insurance law: subrogation and the collateral source rule.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:17:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Contracts/ Choice Of Law/ Insurance/ Coverage/ Public Policy/ Summary Judgment/ Declaratory Judgment</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/contracts-choice-of-law-insurance-coverage-public-policy-summary-judgment-declaratory-judgment/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>From 'Swan &amp; Associates v. American Safety Casualty' (2009AP531)

¶7 In general, Wisconsin courts will enforce parties' express
agreement that the law of a particular jurisdiction shall
control their contractual relations. 'Bush v. National Sch.
Studios, Inc.', 139 Wis. 2d 635, 642, 407 N.W.2d 883 (1987).
Allowing parties some degree of autonomy to stipulate
controlling law &quot;promotes certainty and predictability in
contractual relations .&quot; Id. (citing WILLIS L. M. REESE, Choice
of Law in Torts and Contracts and Directions for the Future, 16
COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 1, 22-24 (1977)). The right is not
unqualified, however; parties are not permitted, through their
contractual selection of applicable law, to disregard the
&quot;important public policies of a state whose law would be
applicable if the parties choice of law provision were
disregarded.&quot; Id.
....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:57:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Insurance – Coverage – Family Member Exclusion</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/insurance-coverage-family-member-exclusion/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In 'Day v. Allstate Indemnity Company' (2008AP2929) the
plaintiff Wendy Day sued Holly Day, her ex-husband’s current
wife, who was an insured under a homeowners' insurance policy
with the defendant, for wrongful death and survivorship claims
alleging that Holly’s negligent supervision caused the
plaintiff's daughter’s death. The defendant asserted that the
family member exclusion clause in the homeowners' liability
policy precluded coverage for the plaintiff's wrongful death and
survivorship claims. The family member exclusion limited
coverage by excluding losses for a “bodily injury to an insured
person whenever any benefit of this coverage would accrue
directly or indirectly to an insured person.” Under the policy,
the plaintiff’s daughter, the plaintiff’s ex-husband and his
wife Holly Day were considered “insured persons,” while the
plaintiff herself was not. The defendant moved for summary
judgment on the coverage issue, and the circuit court denied the
motion. The defendant appealed.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:00:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Wisconsin Supreme Court Issues Opinions Regarding Negligence and Wisconsin’s Injured Patients and Compensation Fund</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/wisconsin-supreme-court-issues-opinions-regarding-negligence-and-wisconsin-s-injured-patients-and-compensation-fund/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued a couple of notable decisions. The first was a highly anticipated case deciding the constitutionality of the Wisconsin Legislature’s transfer of $200 million from the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund. The second case involved an important negligence case deciding whether a principal employer is liable in tort for the injuries sustained by an independent contractor’s employee while he or she is performing the contracted work. Below is a summary of both cases.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:03:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Review granted in 'Casper v. American International'</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/review-granted-in-casper-v-american-international/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>The Wisconsin Supreme Court has granted the petition for review
of the Court of Appeals decision in the consolidated cases
'Casper v. American International South Insurance Co.'
(2006AP1229), 'Casper v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of
Pittsburgh, PA' (2006AP2512), and 'Casper v. National Union Fire
Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA' (2007AP369), 2010 WI App 2, 323
Wis.2d 80, 779 N.W.2d 444, on the issues,
&quot;For 'excusable neglect,' is it necessary to have evidence of
the actions that caused the neglect or of the reasons why a
&quot;carefully structured process to respond to complaints&quot; did not
work if the party failed to timely respond? -- OR Did failure to
answer the complaint in a timely manner constitute excusable
neglect?....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:44:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Does Wisconsin's Recreational Immunity Statute Protect Bicycle Clubs?</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/does-wisconsin-s-recreational-immunity-statute-protect-bicycle-clubs/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>Wisconsin has a long history of promoting tourism and outdoor
activities. One of the great joys of living in Wisconsin is the
number of recreational opportunities available, including a
large number of well-kept bicycle trails. These trails are
developed and maintained by the cooperation of local and state
governments, and a number of bicycle clubs with dedicated
members who volunteer their time and energy to making Wisconsin
a bicycle friendly state. Wisconsin’s Recreational Immunity
Statute, Wis. Stat. sec 895.52, is intended to promote
recreational activity in Wisconsin by making certain
organizations and individuals immune from liability for injuries
or death caused while a person is engaged in recreational
activities. Although the statute does not directly refer to
“bicycle clubs,” it is likely that some bicycle clubs and
organizations fall within the umbrella of protection provided by
the law.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:17:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Specific Performance without Legal Damages; Impossibility Defense</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/specific-performance-without-legal-damages-impossibility-defense/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>From 'Ash Park, L.L.C. v. Alexander &amp; Bishop, Ltd.' (2008AP1735)
We conclude that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise
its discretion when it ordered specific performance of this
contract. The contract provides that specific performance is an
available remedy, and neither the contract nor Wisconsin law
requires Ash Park to demonstrate that a legal remedy would be
inadequate as a precondition to relief. Further, although
impossibility is a defense to specific performance, Alexander &amp;
Bishop failed to present evidence that performance would be
impossible in the proceedings before the circuit court.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:07:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Punitive Damages Unavailable When No Compensatory Damages Awarded</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/wisconsin-supreme-court-rules-punitive-damages-unavailable-when-no-compensatory-damages-awarded/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff is not
entitled to punitive damages in cases where the plaintiff seeks
equitable damages and where no compensatory damages are awarded.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:26:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Trucking Company C.E.O. Personally Liable</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/trucking-company-c-e-o-personally-liable/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In Casper v. American International South Insurance Co.
(2006AP1229), the plaintiffs sustained serious injuries when the
defendant rear-ended a minivan at about 40-45 MPH. At the time
of the accident, the defendant driver was operating a truck on a
route approved by the CEO of the trucking company. The court of
appeals found that the CEO of the trucking company could be
personally liable in negligence for approving the route which
was being traveled at the time of the accident.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:50:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Plaintiff Precluded from Recovering Medical Expenses by Arbitration Ruling</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/plaintiff-precluded-from-recovering-medical-expenses-by-arbitration-ruling/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>On April 28, 2010, the Court of Appeals released Fischer v.
Steffen (2009AP1669) [recommended for publication], a case
involving a plaintiff’s effort to collect medical expenses paid
by her auto insurer. The court ruled against the plaintiff and
held that an arbitration ruling (which was unfavorable to the
plaintiff’s auto insurer) precluded the plaintiff from
recovering the medical expenses.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:45:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Evidence – Expert Testimony – Professional Services</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/evidence-expert-testimony-professional-services/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In Racine County v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc., 2010 WI 25
(2007AP2861), the defendant contracted with the plaintiff to
supply off-the-shelf computer software and provide plaintiff's
employees with training on its usage. After the defendant
allegedly failed to complete the project in a timely manner or
provide training, the plaintiff filed suit for breach of
contract and statutory misrepresentation under Wis. Stat.
§100.18. The plaintiff did not retain an expert to testify as
to the standard of care owed by computer consultants, and the
defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the contract
was one for professional services and that the plaintiff was
required to prove professional negligence in order to recover.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:43:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Homeowner Liable for Dog Bite</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/homeowner-liable-for-dog-bite/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In Pawlowski v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WI 105
(2007AP2651), the issue before the Wisconsin Supreme Court was
whether the defendant homeowner was statutorily liable as a
person who either “harbors” or “keeps” a dog even though the
actual owner of the dog was the person who had control of the
dog at the time of the bite. Just before the bite, the owner
allowed his two dogs to go out the front door of the house. The
circuit court had found that the defendant homeowner was not
liable. The court of appeals reversed. Wisconsin's high court
affirmed the decision.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:40:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Expert Witness’ Methodology Unreliable</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/expert-witness-methodology-unreliable/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:08:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Finding of Reasonableness and Necessity Not Mandated</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/finding-of-reasonableness-and-necessity-not-mandated/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In Hach v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. (2008AP1510), the
plaintiff moved for a directed verdict regarding past medical
expenses. The plaintiff’s argument relied upon the language of
Hanson v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2006 WI 97, which
states that if a plaintiff is injured and the plaintiff used
reasonable and ordinary care in selecting his physicians, then
the plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to the amount his
past medical expenses. The trial court granted the motion. The
court of appeals reversed the trial court. The appellate court
found that the defendant’s experts had disputed the full extent
of the past medical expenses.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:20:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>2010 WDC Legislative Update</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/2010-wdc-legislative-update/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>The 2009-2010 legislative update provided by WDC Lobbyist, Andrew Cook.  ....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 17:59:00 CDT</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Scheduling Order Required Adjuster’s Attendance </title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/scheduling-order-required-adjuster-s-attendance/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>A word of caution, if the scheduling order requires that a party participate in person at a mediation, the insurer must send a person to the mediation. ....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:20:00 CST</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Statutory Changes Regarding Medical Expenses</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/statutory-changes-regarding-medical-expenses/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>While the Governor's latest budget contained many sweeping changes, a small change in one hearsay exception will have a broad impact on litigation.  The newest exception creates a presumption concerning medical bills under the existing exception to healthcare provider records.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:13:00 CST</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Don’t Know Much Biology</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/don-t-know-much-biology/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>The teacher did not heed her own advice in any of the three classes that followed.  Nor did she change her general lab safety instructions.  She continued to conduct the classes as if the injuries had never occurred.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:03:00 CST</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Too Much Crack</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/too-much-crack/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>In order to proceed with a safe place claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) there was an unsafe condition associated with the structure, (2) the unsafe condition caused the plaintiff's injury, and (3) the defendants had either actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition before the injury occurred.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:01:00 CST</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Employer Not Liable for Employee’s “Bizarre and             Unexpected” Conduct</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/employer-not-liable-for-employee-s-bizarre-and-unexpected-conduc/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>Should the court consider whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the duty of ordinary care?  Or, should it evaluate whether the defendant had a duty under the circumstances of the case?....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:58:00 CST</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Resident Could Not Give Himself Permission</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/resident-could-not-give-himself-permission/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>John came home from work and fell asleep.  Without permission, Bryan took the Mercury and went out with friends.  Bryan lost control of the Mercury and hit a building.  One of the passengers was killed.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:54:00 CST</pubDate>
			</item>
					<item>
			  <title>Son Not Covered Under Father’s Business Auto Policy</title>
			  <link>
				http://www.wdc-online.org/index.php/resources/legal-news/son-not-covered-under-father-s-business-auto-policy/		  
			  </link>
			  <description>The Wisconsin Supreme Court found that a father's business auto policy did not provide underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for his son.....</description>
			  			  <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:49:00 CST</pubDate>
			</item>
		     		 </channel>
		</rss>
		
