Burton A. Scott

This case involved a dispute over insurance coverage under a worker's compensation and employers' liability policy issued by North River Insurance to Kenosha Beef International and its subsidiaries. An employee of Birchwood Transport, a subsidiary, was injured on Kenosha Beef's premises and sued Kenosha Beef for negligence after receiving workers' comp benefits; Kenosha Beef sought reimbursement from North River for the $20,000 it paid in settlement, which was defended under a general liability policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to Kenosha Beef, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the policy did not provide coverage because the insured companies are treated as separate entities and the relevant policy provision applies only to dual persona or capacity claims against an employer, which did not apply here as Kenosha Beef was not the employee's employer.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In this case, property owners near a landfill operated by Land Reclamation, Ltd. (LRL) sued LRL for damages from ongoing environmental pollution including airborne dust, odors, and contaminated water. LRL's insurer, Bituminous Casualty Corporation, moved for summary judgment on the ground that coverage was barred by the policies' pollution exclusion clause, which applied unless any discharge was sudden and accidental. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the insurer, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the record contained no facts or reasonable inferences showing sudden and accidental discharges during the policy periods, so the exclusion applied and the insurer had no duty to defend. Arguments that further discovery might reveal qualifying events were deemed waived or speculative and insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

environmentbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved an appeal from a divorce judgment in which the trial court awarded Barbara DeLaMatter permanent maintenance of $300 per week, retroactive to the divorce date, based on findings that she was unable to work due to chronic mental illness. Theodore DeLaMatter challenged the award, arguing errors in the findings on his income, his wife's ability to work, and the retroactive application. The appellate court upheld the finding on Theodore's income but held that the trial court's determination of Barbara's inability to work due to mental illness was clearly erroneous, as psychiatric testimony indicated her panic and personality disorders did not preclude employment and that her alcoholism was the primary barrier. The court further concluded that the trial court erred by not considering Barbara's refusal to seek recommended treatment for her alcoholism when setting the award. As a result, the maintenance award was reversed and the case remanded for a new determination, rendering the retroactivity issue moot.

family law

This Wisconsin Court of Appeals case involved consolidated actions by a child's mother (D.G.) to terminate the parental rights of the child's incarcerated putative father (F.C.) and by the mother's new husband (R.G.) to adopt the child as a stepparent. The trial court ordered the petitioners to pay F.C.'s transportation costs from Arizona to Wisconsin so he could attend the hearings in person, after finding him indigent and entitled to be present. On appeal, the G's argued there was no legal basis for the order, that the court should have considered alternatives to physical presence, and that the state or county should pay instead. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a circuit court has inherent authority to condition the proceedings on the petitioners covering such costs to ensure the respondent's meaningful participation, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the facts presented, and that no authority existed to shift the costs to the state or county.

family lawprocedure

Cynthia Smith sued her insurer, Atlantic Mutual, for underinsured motorist benefits after an accident in which the other driver tendered $50,000 under a matching liability policy and Smith's alleged damages exceeded $100,000. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court held that the policy's reducing clause was valid and unambiguous under controlling Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent, because it expressly reduced the $50,000 limit of liability by any sums paid by the at-fault driver, leaving zero coverage. Because the clause was clear, the court did not reach the policy's definition of an underinsured vehicle or public-policy arguments.

torts & liability

This case concerned a wrongful death action in which the surviving spouse sought compensation for the termination of her late husband's social security disability benefits, which had been their main source of support until he would have reached age 65. The court affirmed the judgment against the insurer, holding that the loss qualified as a compensable "pecuniary injury" under Wisconsin's wrongful death statute, sec. 895.04(4). The core reasoning drew on prior precedent establishing that pecuniary injury includes any reasonably anticipated financial benefit the beneficiary would have received had the decedent lived, irrespective of whether the benefit was wages or other payments such as pensions or disability benefits. The court rejected a narrower interpretation limited to "actual earnings" and declined to apply the collateral source rule in reverse to bar recovery.

torts & liability