Sisson v. Hansen Storage Co., 2008 WL 2497685 (publication decision pending)
Decision Date: 6/24/08
Appeal from judgment of the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County.
Affirmed.
Attorney(s): Stuart R. Deardorff
S&D represented the commercial general liability carrier for a warehouse. S&D filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment, contending that the insured’s employee was a permissive user of a semi-trailer he was unloading with a forklift and, therefore, was an insured under the truck’s commercial auto policy. The circuit court denied the motion based on the worker’s compensation exclusion in the auto policy, since the injured party was an employee of the trucking company. S&D appealed, contending that the exclusion was invalidated by Wis. Stat. § 194.41. For the first time, on appeal, the insurance carrier that issued the commercial auto policy presented evidence that its insured was not subject to the statute because of a federal motor carrier filing. Despite arguments on waiver and judicial notice, the Court of Appeals took judicial notice of the filing and held that the statute did not apply to invalidate the exclusions, thereby affirming the trial court’s ruling.
( Back to top )
Gutter v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 2007 WI App 216, __ Wis. 2d __,__ N.W.2d __
Decision Date: 8/21/07
Appeal from an order entered on jury verdict in Milwaukee County. Affirmed.
Attorney(s): Thomas J. Binder and Christine M. Rice
S&D tried this matter before the Honorable John Franke in May of 2006. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained permanent injury resulting from a bag of canned goods falling on her foot during checkout at Kohl’s Food Store. The jury returned a defense verdict finding no negligence on the grocery store or its employee. The plaintiff appealed after the trial court denied her motion for new trial, which was based primarily on insufficiency of evidence and a perverse and prejudicial verdict. The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the grocery bag fell without negligence of either party.
( Back to top )
Rosario v. ACUITY, A Mut. Ins. Co., 2007 WI App 194, __ Wis. 2d __,
738 N.W.2d 608
Decision Date: 7/10/07
Appeal from judgment of the circuit court in Milwaukee County. Affirmed.
Attorney(s): Thomas J. Binder and Christine M. Rice
The plaintiff claimed negligence and safe place violations after she fell and broke her foot when negotiating a step while exiting the defendant’s building. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding plaintiff’s claims barred by the statute of repose. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the statute of repose did not apply because the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the owner’s failure to warn of an unsafe condition associated with the structure, not as a result of a structural defect. S&D argued that the step was originally unsafe as constructed over forty years prior to the accident and Oliver had no notice of any issues concerning the step’s safety. As there was no evidence presented that the owner improperly repaired or maintained the structure, the court held that the plaintiff’s claims were based on a design defect in construction. The statute of repose was applicable to bar plaintiff’s causes of action against the building owner.
( Back to top )
Bruchert v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Ins. Co., Ltd., 2007 WI App 156, __ Wis. 2d __, 736 N.W.2d 234
Decision Date: 5/22/07
Appeal from a final order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County. Reversed.
Attorney(s): Christine M. Rice
S&D’s client cancelled the defendant’s insurance policy prior to the subject motor vehicle accident due to non-payment of premiums. While the insurer provided the statutory notice of cancellation to the named insured, it did not give the vehicle lessor notice. The trial court denied S&D’s motion for summary judgment holding that the insurer’s failure to give notice of cancellation to the lessor of the vehicle negated cancellation of the policy. The appellate court held that the failure to give notice to the lessor of the pending policy cancellation did not negate the insurer’s proper cancellation of the named insured’s liability coverage: Failure to give notice as required under one policy part does not resurrect coverage under the entire policy.
( Back to top )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
