Tag: Court Watch

Article Highlights Recently Enacted Civil Liability Reforms throughout the Country

Posted on by Hamilton

The Federalist Society this week published an article, Tort Reform Update: Recently Enacted Legislative Reforms and State Court Challenges, authored by WCJC’s Andrew Cook discussing the numerous civil liability reform bills passed throughout the country the last two years. In addition, the article discusses recent decisions involving state court challenges to previously enacted civil liability reforms.

The article notes that over the last two years numerous civil liability reforms have been enacted in nearly half of the states, with Wisconsin leading the way. Other states passing multiple civil liability reforms during the 2011-12 legislative sessions include Alabama, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Continue reading “Article Highlights Recently Enacted Civil Liability Reforms throughout the Country” →

Court Strikes Down Punitive Damages Against Restaurant in Case Involving Human Hair Placed in Food

Posted on by Hamilton

On December 5, 2012, the Court of Appeals, Dist. II, struck down an award of punitive damages to a patron of Texas Roadhouse who found human hair deliberately placed in his food by the restaurant’s employee.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $100,000 against Texas Roadhouse, which appealed the decision. In reversing the trial court, the court of appeals held that the trial court erred in upholding the punitive damages award because the jury did not find Texas Roadhouse causally negligent.

The case is Hansen v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc., 2010AP3137.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Accepts New Cases

Posted on by Hamilton

The Wisconsin Supreme Court twice this month has issued a list of new cases it plans to hear and decide over the next few months. To view the list of the cases accepted by the court along with of a summary of each, click here and here.

WCJC will provide a summary of each case of interest to the business community when oral arguments take place and after the court issues a decision.

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” →