Author: Hamilton

4th District Court of Appeals Decision: Stelpflug v. Rural Mutual Insurance Co. (Inception of Covered Loss)

Posted on by Hamilton

In Stelpflug v. Rural Mutual Insurance Co. (2018AP34), the Court of Appeals District IV held that, when a barn burned down due to damages from a tornado a year earlier, the “inception of the loss” was the date of the barn fire, not the date of the tornado.

A tornado damaged the Stelpflugs’ barn in 2015. Rural Mutual covered damages from the tornado. Almost a year later, a fire started in the barn because the barn’s wiring had been pulled free by the tornado. When Rural Mutual stopped making payments to the Stelpflugs for the fire damages, the Stelpflugs filed the instant lawsuit. Rural Mutual argued the claim was barred by the statute of limitations in Wis. Stat. § 631.83(1)(a) because the “inception of the loss” was the tornado that led to the exposed wiring.

The court agreed with the Stelpflugs that the “inception of the loss” was the fire because the losses from the fire were separate and distinct from the losses from the tornado. The court cited several previous cases stating that the “inception of the loss” is not the causation of the loss, but the date on which the loss occurred. In this case, the loss occurred on the date of the fire, so the Stelpflugs did file a timely claim.

4th District Court of Appeals Decision: Security Health Plan v. American Family (Primary Coverage)

Posted on by Hamilton

In Security Health Plan v. American Family (2017AP1914), the Court of Appeals District IV concluded that American Family’s automobile insurance policies’ medical expense coverage was not a “plan” under Wis. Admin. Code § INS 3.40. Therefore, American Family did not owe Security reimbursement for medical expenses of 42 claimants insured by both entities.

Wis. Admin. Code § INS 3.40 states that, if an insured holds two “plans” with medical expenses coverage, the primary plan would pay the insured’s medical expenses first; the secondary plan would pay after the primary plan limits are exhausted. The issue before the court was whether the medical expense coverage in the American Family policies constituted a “plan” invoking this coordination of coverage.

The court held that the American Family medical expense coverage was not a “plan” as defined in the insurance administrative code because the medical expense coverage is not “required by law” (Wis. Admin. Code § INS Appendix A, II(C)(ii)). While Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4)(a)(2) requires automobile policies to include medical expense coverage, an exception in the subsequent § 632.32(4)(bc) allows insureds to reject that coverage. Therefore, medical expenses coverage is not required by law.

Another definition of “plan” in the insurance administrative code states that, for traditional automobile insurance contracts like American Family’s, only group medical benefits contracts are included as “plans” (Wis. Admin. Code § INS 3.40(6)(f)). The court rejected Security’s argument that American Family’s medical benefits coverage policies were “‘no-fault’ contracts” included in the definition.

Because American Family’s medical expense coverage is not a “plan,” the court ruled American Family was excluded from the coordination of coverage requirements in Wis. Admin. Code § INS 3.40 and did not owe reimbursement to Security for the claimants’ medical expenses.

Wisconsin Tort Costs Fair Well in U.S. Chamber Study

Posted on by Hamilton

At its annual summit in October, the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform released a comprehensive study on how the tort system imposes costs on society. The study shows Wisconsin’s costs and compensation in its tort system fair well in comparison to other states.

The study showed Wisconsin has the fourth lowest tort costs per household at $2,464, almost $1,000 below the national average. In comparison, New York has the highest costs per household of any state at $6,066, more than double Wisconsin’s costs. Wisconsin’s tort costs make up 1.8 percent of the state’s gross domestic product (GDP), substantially below the national average of 2.3 percent. The highest of any state, Florida’s tort costs make up 3.6 percent of its GDP, again more than double Wisconsin’s numbers.

Wisconsin has enacted several significant legal reforms in the last few years to reduce tort costs, including the passage of 2017 Act 235. Act 235 included groundbreaking litigation funding transparency provisions, along with several other common-sense reforms to address the high transactional cost of litigation.

Despite the progress made by Wisconsin reforms, tort costs still impose significant costs for both businesses and individuals. The study estimated total tort costs and compensation paid in the U.S. at $429 billion. The study overall evaluated the tort system as inefficient, with 43 percent of costs covering litigation, insurance, and risk transfer expenses, rather than covering plaintiffs’ compensation. Furthermore, the costs estimated in the study do not include immeasurable costs such as disincentive for innovation and development that leads to lower employment and general harm to states’ economies.

1st District Court of Appeals Decision: Lang v. Lions Club of Cudahy Wisconsin, Inc. (Recreational Immunity)

Posted on by Hamilton

In Lang v. Lions Club of Cudahy Wisconsin, Inc. (2017AP2510), the Court of Appeals District 1 held that recreational immunity did not apply to a sound engineer who set up cords that injured a woman at a music performance.

At an event run by the Lions Club, plaintiff Antoinette Lang tripped over an electrical cord placed by sound engineer Fryed Audio, LLC. Fryed’s principal and a member of the band using the cords, Steve Fryed, positioned the cord prior to the event.

While a separate case ruled the Lions Club was entitled to recreational immunity, the court said Fryed was not an “agent” or “occupier” immune under the statute (Wis. Stat. § 895.52). The appeals court relied on two recent Supreme Court cases, Westmas v. Creekside and Roberts v. T.H.E. Insurance Co., deeming contractors are not property owners entitled to recreational immunity. Fryed was not an “agent” because he was not following specific instructions from the Lions Club. Furthermore, Fryed was not an “occupier” because his presence on the festival property was not permanent and his potential immunity would not affect whether the property would be open to the public in keeping with the intent of Wis. Stat. § 895.52.

Judge Brash wrote a dissent in the case arguing that Fryed actually was an “agent” because the Lions Club had ample opportunity to offer specific cord set-up instructions when it performed a safety check on the grounds. If both the Lions Club and the band are entitled to recreational immunity, Brash argued Fryed as an agent of the two entities should also be immune from liability.

WCJC Files Amicus Brief Urging Appeals Court to Stay Copycat Shareholder Litigation

Posted on by Hamilton

Wisconsin Civil Justice Council (WCJC) has filed an amicus brief in Yandoli v. REV Group, Inc. arguing the Waukesha County Circuit Court erred by denying the defendants’ motion to stay the court proceeding in a securities class action lawsuit when an identical class action case was filed first in federal court.

Plaintiffs filed actions against REV Group, a Milwaukee manufacturer, when its stock price dropped after its initial public offering. Plaintiffs in three federal lawsuits and the instant state case claim REV Group violated Sections 11 and 15 of the federal 1933 Act. The federal litigation consists of not only the same claims but also the same defendants, factual allegations, alleged class, and relief sought. Wisconsin courts typically stay proceedings when a class action involving federal laws is filed in federal court. However, the court in this case denied the defendants’ motion to stay.

The WCJC brief asks the Court of Appeals District II to grant leave for the defendants to appeal the circuit court’s decision not to stay the state case while the federal case is pending. The brief argues that:

  1. The circuit court’s decision not to stay the state level proceedings will harm Wisconsin businesses by allowing for meritless duplicative securities litigation. If permitted to stand, the holding will encourage a parade of opportunistic plaintiff attorneys to file duplicative lawsuits, forcing Wisconsin businesses to defend identical lawsuits in different venues.
  2. Allowing such “copycat” shareholder litigation to proceed in Wisconsin will significantly increase costs and harm Wisconsin’s business climate. Costs of defending these lawsuits will be borne by shareholders, employees, and consumers in Wisconsin. Furthermore, the “litigation tax” companies must consider in an unfavorable business climate would disincentivize growth and investment in the Wisconsin economy.
  3. The circuit court’s decision contravenes the purpose of the Commercial Court Pilot Project to increase efficiency and predictability in business litigation in Wisconsin. If the lower court’s decision is allowed to stand, it would open the Business Court (in which this case was filed) to numerous lawsuits that were never intended when the pilot rule was put into place by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

US DOJ Files Statement of Interest Against Asbestos Trust Fraud

Posted on by Hamilton

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a statement of interest in a recent asbestos trust proposal, stating the United States may object to asbestos trust plans that lack transparency and do not contain safeguards against fraud. The statement says the United States has an interest in preserving funds for legitimate asbestos claimants and ensuring proper reimbursement to the federal government for claimants’ asbestos-related Medicare costs. Nineteen state attorneys general, including Wisconsin’s Attorney General Brad Schimel, had written to DOJ last year regarding potential abuse in asbestos trusts.

Reports and cases in recent years have found evidence of fraud and mismanagement in asbestos trusts established under 11 U.S.C. § 524(g). While the asbestos trusts process was created as a streamlined solution to problems with asbestos liability litigation, reports have found illegitimate plaintiffs and opportunistic attorneys withholding evidence of exposure and filing inconsistent claims against multiple defendants, among other fraudulent activity. Abuse has also been reported in the mismanagement of the trusts, whose “trust advisory committees” often consist of asbestos claimants’ plaintiff attorneys.

The DOJ statement of interest in In re Kaiser Gypsum Co. argues the asbestos trust plans in the case are missing safeguards to prevent abuse and to educate claimants about their obligation to reimburse Medicare for asbestos-related health care covered before the trust payment. The statement of interest says plans should also include transparency provisions allowing the United States to monitor claims, payments, and trust governance; protections against excessive administrative costs and attorney fees; and adequate defenses against non-meritorious claims.

U.S. Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio said the statement of interest is “just one action the Department will take to increase the transparency and accountability of asbestos trusts.”

Wisconsin has been a leader in combatting asbestos trust fraud and requiring transparency. In 2014, the Wisconsin Legislature enacted into law 2013 Wisconsin Act 154, which created various requirements for plaintiff attorneys to produce information regarding claims the plaintiff has made or anticipates making against an asbestos trust.

 

Second to Last MU Poll Before Election Shows AG Schimel Ahead

Posted on by Hamilton

On Oct. 10, 2018, Marquette University Law School (MU) released its second to last poll before the Nov. 6 election. In the state attorney general race, incumbent Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel maintained his lead over Democrat opponent Josh Kaul at 45 percent to 41 percent. Schimel’s lead narrowed slightly from his six point lead in the previous poll.

The October results showed voters have a favorable view of Schimel, with 32 percent viewing him as favorable and 22 percent viewing him as unfavorable. Meanwhile, a majority of voters have not heard enough to form an opinion about Kaul, with 67 percent still saying they have not heard enough (compared to 69 percent in the previous poll). 37 percent said they have not heard enough about Schimel (compared to 44 percent in the previous poll).

Read about MU poll results for other Wisconsin races.

WCJC Presents James E. Hough Distinguished Service Award to Bob Fassbender

Posted on by Hamilton

On Oct. 12, 2018, WCJC presented the James E. Hough Distinguished Service Award to Robert Fassbender. Bob helped co-found the Wisconsin Civil Justice Council in 2009 and served as its Executive Director until he retired from the Hamilton Consulting Group in December 2017. During his tenure as Executive Director, WCJC experienced unprecedented success, which started in 2009 when WCJC helped defeat numerous bills introduced at the behest of the plaintiff’s bar. Beginning in 2011 and lasting through 2017, Bob helped lead the coalition in passing an unprecedented number of civil justice bills supporting the business community and helping Wisconsin gain national recognition.

The Distinguished Service Award is presented in honor of James E. Hough, former Hamilton Consulting Group partner, who for many years represented Wisconsin business interests in civil justice matters before the Wisconsin Legislature.

Supreme Court Accepts Seven Cases

Posted on by Hamilton

The Supreme Court accepted seven new cases last week. Cases of note include:

 

John Teske v. Wilson Mutual Insurance Co. (claim preclusion)
The Supreme Court will decide whether previous litigation related to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage precludes the instant tort claim alleging negligence by the driver insured by Wilson. The appeals court ruled the causes of action of the UIM action and the tort action differed, so claim preclusion should not apply. Wilson appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to dismiss the tort action.

Ann Cattau v. National Insurance Services of Wisconsin (negligence and breach of fiduciary duty)
The plaintiffs, former teachers and school administrators, claim negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and misrepresentation against MidAmerica and NIS, which administered their retirement plans. The plans were noncompliant with federal law, and the plaintiffs ultimately owed several years of tax dollars back to the Internal Revenue Service. The plaintiffs claim they relied on MidAmerica and NIS as experts to administer a qualifying plan, and MidAmerica and NIS misrepresented the plan as federally compliant. The issues before the Supreme Court are whether the plaintiffs stated an adequate claim against defendants MidAmerica and NIS and whether the plaintiffs should be able to amend their complaint for a second time.

L.G. v. Aurora Residential Alternatives, Inc. (compelled arbitration)
The issue presented in this case is whether a circuit court’s order denying a motion to compel arbitration is a “final order” under Wis. Stat. § 808.03(1), allowing the order to be appealed.

 

All Supreme Court pending cases.

Supreme Court October Oral Arguments

Posted on by Hamilton

The Supreme Court plans to hear several cases in October that are relevant to the Wisconsin business community. The court has already heard oral arguments in six cases and will hear three more at the end of the month.

On Oct. 10, the court heard oral arguments in City Deck Landing LLC v. Circuit Court for Brown County. The case will determine whether a circuit court properly stayed a private arbitration proceeding while a related insurance company duty to defend action proceeded in circuit court. The court also heard Midwest Neurosciences Associates v. Great Lakes Neurosurgical Associates, a contract dispute which will examine whether an arbitration clause from a prior agreement is applicable in a subsequent contract. In Stuart White v. City of Watertown, the court will determine whether cities, in addition to towns, may enforce statutes related to fences for farms.

On Oct. 12, the court traveled to Sparta, Wisconsin to hold oral arguments. One notable case was Kieninger v. Crown Equipment Corp., which will determine whether employees who voluntarily commute using an employer’s vehicle should be compensated for commuting time under the federal Employee Commuting Flexibility Act.

On Oct. 29, the court will be back in the state capitol to hear arguments in Steadfast Insurance Co. v. Greenwich Insurance Co., which will decide how coverage and defense costs should be allocated between the two insurance companies that covered Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District during several rain events that caused damage to homeowners.

Check back on the WCJC blog for updates on these and other Supreme Court cases of note to the business community.