Category: Editorials

Court of Appeals Voids Settlement Reached Between Parties without Their Attorneys’ Knowledge; Allows Lemon Law King to Get Attorney’s Fees

Posted on by Hamilton

On October 16, the Court of Appeals, Dist. I, held that a settlement reached between the plaintiff and the defendant, which excluded attorney’s fees for the plaintiff’s attorney, was void on public policy grounds. The case is Betz v. Diamond Jim’s Auto Sales.

The case involved a lawsuit filed by the self-proclaimed Lemon Law King, Vince Megna, against Diamond Jim’s Auto Sales involving the sale of a used car to the plaintiff, Randy Betz.

The lawsuit alleged intentional fraud, advertising injury, and violation of the statute licensing automobile dealers. The plaintiff sued under statues that contain fee shifting provisions, which allow the court to award attorney’s fees to the plaintiff’s attorney in the event the plaintiff prevails in the case. Continue reading “Court of Appeals Voids Settlement Reached Between Parties without Their Attorneys’ Knowledge; Allows Lemon Law King to Get Attorney’s Fees” →

One of Judge Kloppenburg’s First Opinions Favors Employee over Employer in WFMLA Case

Posted on by Hamilton

Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg was recently elected to the Court of Appeals, District IV, which is located in Dane County. District IV hears appeals from from circuit courts throughout southern, southwestern, western, and central Wisconsin.

In one of her first published decisions involving businesses, Judge Kloppenburg overturned a Dane County Circuit Court decision dismissing a lawsuit against Kraft Foods Global, Inc. The circuit court held that the lawsuit was not timely filed, and therefore dismissed the case. The case is Hoague v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc.

The case involved a complaint by an employee against Kraft Foods for an alleged violation of the Wisconsin Family and Medical Leave Act (WFMLA). The Wisconsin Equal Rights Division ruled in favor of the employee and ordered Kraft Foods to pay the employee over $18,000 for loss of back pay, along with another $12,000 for attorney’s fees and costs. Continue reading “One of Judge Kloppenburg’s First Opinions Favors Employee over Employer in WFMLA Case” →

Wisconsin Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Case Deciding whether Physical Assault Qualifies as an “Accident” for Purposes of Insurance Coverage

Posted on by Hamilton

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 23, heard oral argument in a case that will determine whether a physical assault at a party qualifies as an “accident” for purposes of insurance coverage under a homeowner’s policy. The case is Schinner v. Gundrum, 2012 WI App. 31, 340 Wis. 2d 195 (2011AP1564). Continue reading “Wisconsin Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Case Deciding whether Physical Assault Qualifies as an “Accident” for Purposes of Insurance Coverage” →

Supreme Court to Decide Scope of Discovery in Arbitration Case

Posted on by Hamilton

IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company issued an automobile insurance policy to the Marlowes (the plaintiffs). The uninsured provision contained an arbitration agreement which provided that the “local rules of law as to procedures and evidence will apply” to the arbitration.

Following a car accident, the Marlowes asserted an uninsured motorist (UM) claim under the IDS policy, and the parties agreed to arbitrate the claim. IDS subsequently requested discovery from the Marlowes, including depositions, the production of medical records, and an independent medical examination. Continue reading “Supreme Court to Decide Scope of Discovery in Arbitration Case” →

High Court Hears Oral Argument in UIM Case Determining Whether Policy Excluding Self-Insured Vehicles is Lawful

Posted on by Hamilton

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 9 heard oral argument in a case dealing with underinsured coverage (UIM). The case arose from an automobile accident which killed Lynn Bethke. Bethke collided with a driver who was operating a rental car owned by AVIS Rent-a-Car. Continue reading “High Court Hears Oral Argument in UIM Case Determining Whether Policy Excluding Self-Insured Vehicles is Lawful” →

“The Next Asbestos” – False Advertising and Mislabeling Class Action Lawsuits Against the Agriculture, Food and Beverage Industry

Posted on by Hamilton

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are always looking to identify “the next asbestos.” This is the next wave of litigation that will allow them to file multiple cases, all over the country, against defendants with deep-pockets, so they can obtain large recoveries over a long period of time – just like they did in asbestos cases (and still do, at least in some jurisdictions). It turned out that litigation against tobacco companies also fit this description. Litigation against lead paint/pigment companies and silica companies did not. Continue reading ““The Next Asbestos” – False Advertising and Mislabeling Class Action Lawsuits Against the Agriculture, Food and Beverage Industry” →

Wisconsin Supreme Court Review and Preview

Posted on by Hamilton

The Madison Federalist Society will hold a luncheon program on Thursday, September 27 titled, “Wisconsin Supreme Court Review and Preview.”

The speaker will be Prof. Rick Esenberg, who is an adjunct law professor at Marquette Law School and President and General Counsel of the public interest law firm, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.

Prof. Esenberg will review the more noteworthy decisions from the Supreme Court’s 2011-12 term, and will preview a few important cases that will be before the Court in its 2012-13 term.

The event is from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Madison Club. The cost is $20 for non-Federalist Society members, and $15 for Federalist Society members, and includes lunch.

Email Andrew Cook if you are interested in attending the event.

Poll: 9 out 10 Say Lawsuit Abuse Is a Problem

Posted on by Hamilton

A recent poll conducted by the American Tort Reform Association and the grassroots Sick of Lawsuits released a national survey finding that a strong majority of people believe lawsuit abuse hurts economic growth, job creation, and U.S. competitiveness.

Below are a few specific findings from the poll:

  • 89 percent surveyed think that lawsuit abuse is a problem (34 percent say a “major problem,” 35 percent  say a “big problem,” and 21 percent say a “minor problem”). Only five percent say lawsuit abuse is not a problem at all.
  • 60 percent believe that the number of lawsuits filed against businesses has hurt the U.S. economy.
  • Nearly four of five surveyed (78 percent) believe there are too many lawsuits, with 8 percent thinking there are too few, and 3 percent who say there are about the right amount.

Click here to read the entire study.

Wisconsin’s Lawsuit Climate Ranking Increases Thanks to Tort Reforms Enacted in 2011-12

Posted on by Hamilton

Wisconsin moved up seven spots, from No. 22 to No. 15, in the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform’s latest lawsuit climate study: 2012 State Liability Systems Survey, Lawsuit Climate: Ranking the States.[1] The survey of over 1100 corporate attorneys and executives focused on a number of criteria, including each state’s overall treatment of tort and contract litigation, treatment of class action lawsuits, damages, and judges’ impartiality.

“Thanks to the significant tort reforms enacted during last session by the Wisconsin Legislature and Gov. Scott Walker, Wisconsin’s litigation climate has improved and the state is a better place to do business,” said Bill G. Smith, President of the Wisconsin Civil Justice Council (WCJC) and Wisconsin Director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).

The first bill introduced was comprehensive tort reform legislation, which eventually became 2011 Wisconsin Act 2. The legislation brought Wisconsin back into the mainstream and overturned a number of negative decisions issued by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the 2005-06 term.

During Gov. Walker’s second special session in the fall of 2011, the Legislature enacted three more substantive tort reforms.[2] Continue reading “Wisconsin’s Lawsuit Climate Ranking Increases Thanks to Tort Reforms Enacted in 2011-12” →