In Wolff v. Menard, Inc. (2018AP119), the Court of Appeals District I held that summary judgment was applicable because there were no issues of material fact related to where an accident at a Menards store occurred and who was responsible for it.

Menard contracted with Neumann to maintain parts of its premises in the winter. 1^st Auto & Casualty Insurance Co. insured Neumann’s vehicles used for salting. When plaintiff Marvin Wolff slipped and fell outside a Menards store, he sued Menard, Neumann, and 1^st Auto for negligence and violation of Wisconsin’s Safe Place Statute. 1^st Auto sought a summary judgement ruling that there was no coverage because Wolff fell on a sidewalk and Neumann was not responsible for maintaining sidewalks.

Menard argued there were genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment in regard to two issues: 1) whether Wolff fell on a sidewalk or in the parking lot and 2) whether or not Neumann was responsible for maintaining sidewalks in addition to the parking lot. However, the court found: 1) no evidence contrary to Wolff’s testimony that he fell on the sidewalk and 2) no evidence that Neumann used a vehicle to maintain the sidewalk, which would have implicated coverage. Therefore, the court upheld summary judgment in favor of 1^st Auto.