In Buehrens v. Schave (2019AP1649), the Court affirmed the circuit court’s finding that the term “garage” as it was used in a residential restrictive covenant was ambiguous, and therefore couldn’t be used to restrict the free and unencumbered use of property.
Category: Courts of Appeals
Arrowhead Systems Inc. v. Grant Thornton LLP (Breach of Contract)
In Arrowhead Systems Inc. v. Grant Thornton LLP (2019AP2268), the Court affirmed summary judgement for accounting firm Grant Thornton who were being sued by Arrowhead for negligence, breach of duty, and breach of contract because Grant Thornton did not alert Arrowhead to a specific strategy that could have saved him money.
Jones Sign Co. v. Consensus Consulting & Construction, Inc. (Forum Selection Clause)
In Jones Sign Co. v. Consensus Consulting & Construction, Inc. (2019AP002189), the Court of Appeals gave a per curiam opinion which upheld a forum selection clause in a contract.
Loren Imhoff Homebuilder, Inc. v. Taylor
In Loren Imhoff Homebuilder, Inc. v. Taylor (2019AP002205), an arbitrator fell asleep during an evidentiary hearing so the circuit court vacated his final decision, the court of appeals reversed.
Ebert v. Village of Gresham (Statutory Notice Requirement)
In Ebert v. Village of Gresham (2019AP002178), the Court affirmed a circuit court dismissal of a trespass claim that failed to timely comply with the a notice of claim statute.
Nelson v. Loessin (Involuntary Plaintiffs)
In Nelson v. Loessin (2018AP002448), the Court reversed the circuit court’s decision to deny involuntary plaintiff’s dismissal motion.
Rural Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kuhn North American, Inc. (Failure to Meet Ordered Deadline)
In Rural Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kuhn North American, Inc. (2019AP001907), the Court affirmed a decision of summary judgement against Rural after they had failed to meet the deadline for disclosing lay witnesses.
Leitner v. LIRC (Unemployment Benefits)
In Leitner v. LIRC (2019AP1196), the Court of Appeals District IV held that the plaintiff was ineligible for immediate unemployment benefits after voluntarily terminating her employment.
Plaintiff Rebecca Leitner was working at the University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation from 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. In June 2017, the Medical Foundation changed her schedule to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., making it difficult for her to transport her child to school. In July 2017, Leitner was approved for leave for four hours a day to care for a sick family member. In September 2017, Leitner voluntarily terminated her employment at the Medical foundation, citing the schedule change and need of more time to care for her sick family member.
Despite voluntarily terminating her employment, Leitner argued she was entitled to immediate unemployment benefits because she met two exemptions under Wisconsin’s unemployment benefits statutes (Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)):
- There was good cause attributable to her employer because the change in her schedule made it difficult for her to transport her child to school and fundamentally altered the terms of her employment.
- She terminated her employment to care for a family member.
The court found that Leitner was not eligible for immediate benefits because:
- The change in schedule made it difficult, but not impossible, for her to transport her child to school. Furthermore, the original 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. schedule had not been a specified condition of her employment at the Medical Foundation.
- According to a physician’s report, Leitner did not need more than the four hours the Medical Foundation allotted her to care for her sick family member.
Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (Voting Software Confidentiality)
In Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (2019AP272), the Court of Appeals District IV held that parties reviewing voting software during a recount may disclose opinions based on review of the software.
Wis. Stat. § 5.905(4) provides that if there is a recount in a state election, a party may review software components used to record votes in the election. The statute requires the Wisconsin Election Commission to grant access to software components if the party enters into a confidentiality agreement.
In 2016, the Jill Stein Campaign requested review of the Election Systems & Software, LLC’s electronic voting system used in the November 2016 election. Allowing the campaign to review the system pursuant to § 5.905(4), the Commission provided a confidentiality and nondisclosure agreement that required the campaign to maintain the confidentiality of “all proprietary information.” The Commission did not specifically prohibit the campaign from publicly disclosing any opinions based on review of the Election Systems software.
In this case, Election Systems argued the Commission’s confidentiality agreement was not broad enough to satisfy the confidentiality requirement of § 5.905(4). According to Election Systems, the Commission should have prohibited the campaign from disclosing any comments or opinions derived from the campaign’s review of the voting software.
The appeals court disagreed with Elections System, finding that the plain language of § 5.905(4) does not prohibit reviewing parties from disclosing opinions based on review of voting software. Instead, the statute simply requires maintaining confidentiality of “proprietary information” (i.e., the actual software components). The Commission was not required to expand on the statutory language in its confidentiality agreement with the campaign to prohibit disclosure of opinions based on review of those software components. Furthermore, the court found that the campaign’s disclosure of opinions on the software components was not an unauthorized use of Election Systems’s trade secrets.
Thompson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (Homeowners Insurance)
In Thompson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2019AP1182), the Court of Appeals District III held that the plaintiff’s injury occurred after the expiration of the insurer’s policy period, so there was no coverage for the plaintiff’s claims.
The Thompsons were visiting a home in Weyerhauser, Wis., in July 2016 when a deck railing collapsed and Richard Thompson fell off the deck. Previous homeowners William and Susan Carroll had built the deck. Seeking compensation for Richard’s injury, the Thompsons sued various persons, including the Carrolls and their homeowners insurer for the Weyerhauser house, Wilson Mutual. The Carrolls’ policies with Wilson mutual expired in August 2013, a few months after they sold the house.
The Wilson Mutual policy provided coverage for liability of the insured “because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence,” defining “occurrence” as “an accident…that results in ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ during the policy period.” The policy further states that “This policy only covers losses, ‘bodily injury,’ and ‘property damage’ that occur during the policy period.”
The court found that Wilson Mutual did not cover the Thompsons’ claims because the “occurrence” of “bodily injury” to Richard Thompson occurred in 2016, after the expiration of the Wilson Mutual policy period in 2013.