Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The two plaintiffs in this case, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) and Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Limited (AEGIS), brought suit against the defendant, Arby Construction, Inc. (Arby), for indemnification of the damages that the plaintiffs paid in the settlement of a tort suit in federal court. The circuit court dismissed the AEGIS claim against Arby on the basis of claim preclusion. At issue on appeal was whether AEGIS raised, in the form of an affirmative defense, a cross-claim against Arby in the prior federal action and was therefore precluded from pursuing the same claim in this action because the claim was adjudicated in the federal judgment of dismissal. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, which affirmed the circuit court, holding that AEGIS's claim was raised, in substance, in the prior federal action and was decided. Therefore, the claim was subject to claim preclusion and was properly dismissed by the circuit court.

In this case the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a charitable hospital may pursue payment for medical care provided to a Medicaid-eligible patient by filing a lien against a settlement between the patient and an insurance company covering the liability of a tortfeasor responsible for the patient's injuries. To answer the question, the Court balanced the complex state and federal legal framework surrounding Medicaid with Wis. Stat. 779.80 (hospital lien statute). The Court concluded that the soundest harmonization of the two permitted the liens at issue here. In so doing, the Court reversed the court of appeals, which reversed the circuit court's reasoning that the hospital was authorized to either file the liens or bill Medicaid.

This case arose from a fatal motorcycle accident in which Steven Wadzinski was struck and killed by an uninsured motorist. Steven's wife, Michelle, sought uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under an umbrella insurance policy that Steven's company carried on him at the time of his death. At issue was the meaning of an endorsement to the executive umbrella policy, and whether that endorsement caused contextual ambiguity such that a reasonable insured would expect $2,000,000 of UM coverage under the policy. The circuit court held that the executive umbrella policy was clearly intended to provide only third-party liability coverage and granted summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Company. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the executive umbrella policy was contextually ambiguous, and therefore, the policy should be construed in favor of the insured to afford coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the policy at issue unambiguously did not afford first-party UM coverage, and therefore, the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners was proper.

The questions before the Supreme Court in this case stemmed from damages sustained because of food contaminated by E. coli pathogens at two Sizzler Steak House restaurants. The plaintiffs in the underlying actions settled years ago, and the claims before the Court related to the apportionment of liability and costs among those who were defendants in the underlying actions. The defendants included Sizzler and Excel corporation, which processed and distributed the contaminated meat that was source of the E. coli pathogens. Among the plaintiffs was the estate of Brianna Kreifall, who died from the contaminated food. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court. The Supreme Court affirmed on all issues, holding, inter alia, that (1) Sizzler was entitled to recover consequential damages for Excel's breach of implied warranties in the parties' meat supply contract; (2) Sizzler was entitled to indemnity from Excel for the entirety of Sizzler's advance partial payment to the Kriefall family; and (3) notwithstanding the jury's determination that Sizzler was zero percent responsible for the E. coli contaminated food, Sizzler may not recover attorney fees from Excel because the exception to the American Rule did not apply here.

After William Weborg died of severe coronary artery disease, his wife and their minor sons (collectively, the Weborgs) commenced a medical malpractice action against three physicians, their insurer, and the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund (collectively, the physicians), claiming that the three physicians were negligent in their care and treatment of William, resulting in his death. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the physicians, and the circuit court dismissed the Weborgs' complaint against the physicians. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court applied an improper legal standard in admitting the evidence of life insurance proceeds and social security benefits, but the error was harmless; and (2) the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in modifying the standard jury instruction on expert testimony, but the error was harmless.

After Employee suffered a work-related injury and was terminated by Employer due to Employer's inability to accommodate his physical restrictions, Employee filed a worker's compensation claim for permanent and total disability. The Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) determined that Employee was permanently and totally disabled as a result of his work injury. LIRC made this determination after denying Employer's last-minute request to cross-examine or make further inquires of Dr. Jerome Ebert, an independent physician appointed by the Department of Workforce Development to examine Schaefer and report on the cause of his disability. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Employer did not have a statutory right to cross-examine Dr. Ebert, (2) LIRC did not violate Employer's due process rights when it declined to remand for cross-examination, and (3) LIRC did not erroneously exercise its discretion by declining to remand for a third time to allow Dr. Ebert to be questioned further.

Thomas and Barbara Jandre filed an action against, inter alia, a physician and her insurer, asserting (1) the physician negligently diagnosed Thomas with Bell's palsy, and (2) the physician breached her duty to inform a patient by failing to inform Thomas of a diagnostic test that was available to rule out the possibility of a stroke. The circuit court found that the physician's diagnosis of Bell's palsy was not negligent but that the physician was negligent with respect to her duty to inform the patient. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision after applying the reasonable patient standard, holding that under circumstances of the present case involving a non-negligent diagnosis of Bell's palsy, the circuit court could not determine, as a matter of law, that the physician had no duty to inform Thomas of the possibility that the cause of his symptoms might be a blocked artery and of the availability of alternative, non-invasive means of ruling out or confirming the source of his symptoms.

After Employer and Employee settled a suit Employee brought against Employer, Employer's Insurer paid the policy's maximum of $2 million pursuant to an oral funding agreement. Insurer then filed an action against Employer, seeking a declaration that its policies provided no coverage for Employee's claim and reimbursement of the $2 million. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer on March 26, but the parties agreed to delay entry of a final judgment. On July 8, the circuit court entered a final judgment. Insurer appealed on August 12. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the circuit court's March 26 decision and order was the final order for purposes of appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Insurer's appeal was timely because although the March 26 order arguably disposed of the entire matter in litigation between the parties, it did not unambiguously do so, and therefore, the July 8 judgment was final for purposes of appeal; (2) the funding agreement was an enforceable contract; (3) under these circumstances, an insurer cannot recover payments based on an unjust enrichment theory; and (4) Insurer's asserted mistake of fact did not provide grounds for voiding the contract.

Plaintiffs in this action consisted of Heritage Farms and several other landowners whose properties were damaged as a result of a forest fire. A jury determined the fire was negligently caused by Jeffrey Knaack. Post-verdict, Plaintiffs moved for judgment against Knaack, the campground, and their respective insurers (Defendants) for double damages and attorney fees and costs under Wis. Stat. 26.21(1). The circuit court awarded Heritage Farms its attorney fees and costs but declined to double Heritage Farms' damages. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) pursuant to section 26.21(1), if it is determined that the owner's property was injured or destroyed by a forest fire that occurred through willfulness, malice, or negligence, the property owner is entitled to double damages; (2) because the jury determined Heritage Farms' property was damaged by a forest fire caused by Knaack's negligence, Heritage Farms was entitled to double damages; (3) pursuant to Wis. Stat. 841.04(4), Heritage Farms was entitled to twelve percent interest on its double damages award from the date of the jury's verdict and to twelve percent interest on its award of attorney fees and costs from the date of that award; and (4) section 814.04(4) was constitutional.

Insured, who was injured, submitted a claim to Insurer under her underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage after exhausting the policy limits of the underinsured motorist. An arbitration panel concluded that the court of appeals decision in Heritage Mutual v. Graser precluded Insured from recovering under her UIM coverage the value of medical expenses that were written off by her medical provider. The circuit court modified the arbitration award to include the reasonable value of the written-off medical expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the arbitration panel's decision in this case was properly modified by the circuit court because the arbitrators exceeded their authority by failing to fully review the Court's decisions on the collateral source rule and the law of damages. The Court overruled Graser to the extent that it held that the collateral source rule had no application in cases involving UIM coverage, because according to precedent, an injured party is entitled to recover the reasonable value of medical services, which, under the operation of the collateral source rule, includes written-off medical expenses.