Nooyen v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Construction Statute of Repose)

*This case is recommended for publication. In Nooyen v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (2019AP289), the Court of Appeals District III dismissed safe place statute claims based on the plaintiff’s husband’s development of mesothelioma from asbestos. The court found the construction statute of repose barred the claims. Norbert Nooyen was working on the construction of two […]

Continue Reading ›

Lampe v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. (Future Medical Expenses)

In Lampe v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. (2019AP656), the Court of Appeals District I found insufficient evidence for a jury award of future health care expenses to a plaintiff injured in a car accident. Plaintiff Brian Lampe was injured in a car accident and sued the other driver and his insurer State Farm. The […]

Continue Reading ›

Hendrix v. Secura Insurance (Safe Place Statute)

In Hendrix v. Secura Insurance (2018AP1103), the Court of Appeals District III allowed a plaintiff’s slip-and-fall safe place statute claim against the operator of a parking lot to proceed. The court found that the operator of the parking lot, Dedicated Fleet Services, could have had constructive notice of the unsafe condition, whereas the owner of […]

Continue Reading ›

Storm v. Wisconsin Mutual Insurance Co. (UIM Reducing Clause)

In Storm v. Wisconsin Mutual Insurance Co. (2018AP1285), the Court of Appeals District III found that an insurer gave proper notice to its insured about a policy change adding a reducing clause. Therefore, the policy was valid, and the underinsured motorist (UIM) limit was properly reduced. Teresa Storm was injured in a car accident and […]

Continue Reading ›

Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. DOR (Agency Rulemaking Procedures)

*This case is recommended for publication.   In Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. DOR (2018AP1239), the Court of Appeals District IV held that the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) complied with rulemaking procedures in Wis. Stat. Ch. 227 when it promulgated new rules regarding property tax classification.   Background Wisconsin law provides certain incentives for property […]

Continue Reading ›

Graff v. Continental Indemnity Co. (Worker’s Compensation Exclusive Remedy)

In Graff v. Continental Indemnity Co. (2018AP1782), the Court of Appeals District III held that the worker’s compensation exclusive remedy bars tort actions based on negligent denial of benefits by an insurance company. Plaintiff Francis Graef developed depression as a result of a work-related injury. Continental, Graef’s employer’s worker’s compensation insurer, approved initial payments for […]

Continue Reading ›

Trost v. Haack Homestead Inspections, LLC (Duty to Defend)

In Trost v. Haack Homestead Inspections, LLC (2018AP2344), the Court of Appeals District IV held that a liability insurer had no duty to defend because the complaint did not allege property damage caused by the insured. Defendants Raymond and Donna Weihofen sold their house. After discovering a bat infestation and water intrusion in the home, […]

Continue Reading ›

Vistelar, LLC v. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Co. (Duty to Defend)

In Vistelar, LLC v. Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Co. (2019AP633), the Court of Appeals District I held that the insurer did not have a duty to defend against claims of trademark infringement because the policy prohibited coverage for known losses. Vistelar and Verbal Judo entered into a licensing agreement wherein Vistelar could use Verbal Judo’s […]

Continue Reading ›

Paustian Medical & Surgical Center, S.C. v. IMT Insurance Co. (Duty to Defend)

In Paustian Medical & Surgical Center, S.C. v. IMT Insurance Co. (2019AP141), the Court of Appeals District IV held that the insurer had no duty to defend because an impaired property exclusion applied. Paustian contracted with RC Heating & Cooling so RC could design and install an HVAC system in the build-out of Paustian’s medical […]

Continue Reading ›

Southwest Airlines Co. v. DOR (Tax Assessment)

In Southwest Airlines Co. v. DOR (2019AP818), the Court of Appeals District I held that Southwest Airlines and AirTran Airways did not meet the statutory requirements to qualify for a “hub facility” exemption from property taxes. The “hub facility” exemption from property taxes exempts air carriers from paying property taxes if they operate at least […]

Continue Reading ›