Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Gerald Lorbiecki, a steamfitter, was diagnosed with and later died from mesothelioma, a disease caused by asbestos exposure. He alleged that part of his exposure occurred while working at Pabst Brewing Company’s brewery in the mid-1970s, where he was employed by an independent contractor. The facility contained extensive asbestos-insulated piping, and Lorbiecki and other workers removed and replaced this insulation using methods that generated airborne asbestos dust. Evidence showed that Pabst was aware of the presence and dangers of asbestos during this period but did not undertake abatement or enforce protective measures.The Milwaukee County Circuit Court, after dismissing Lorbiecki’s common-law negligence claim, allowed his claim under Wisconsin’s safe-place statute to proceed. At trial, a jury found Pabst liable under the statute for failing to provide a safe workplace, awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and apportioned liability among Pabst and several non-party companies. The court entered judgment for Lorbiecki against Pabst, applying statutory caps to certain damages and including a portion of liability attributed to another company based on the non-delegable duty under the safe-place statute.On appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals largely affirmed the trial court’s rulings. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case and held that Pabst could be liable under the safe-place statute to an employee of an independent contractor, as the statute imposes a heightened, non-delegable duty of care that supersedes common-law limitations. The Court also found sufficient evidence to allow the jury to consider punitive damages. However, it ruled that the statutory cap on punitive damages applies only to the compensatory damages recoverable from the sole remaining defendant, Pabst, and not to the total compensatory damages found by the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals. View "Estate of Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Company" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Wisconsin legislature enacted a statute granting immunity to health care providers from civil liability for certain acts or omissions occurring between March 12, 2020, and July 11, 2020. Savannah Wren, whose pregnancy was considered high risk, experienced the stillbirth of her child after multiple visits to Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital. She alleged negligent care and subsequently filed suit for medical malpractice, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the hospital and associated medical professionals.The Milwaukee County Circuit Court considered the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the immunity provided by WIS. STAT. § 895.4801. Wren challenged the statute’s constitutionality on several grounds, including vagueness, overbreadth, and violations of her rights to redress, jury trial, due process, and equal protection. The circuit court struck her supplemental equal protection claim and ultimately dismissed her complaint with prejudice, finding the statute constitutional.Upon appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. It held that § 895.4801 was facially unconstitutional because it deprived litigants of their right to a jury trial under Article I, Section 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and concluded that the statute was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed only whether § 895.4801 facially violates the state constitutional right to a jury trial. The court held that because the legislature has the authority to abrogate or suspend common law causes of action under Article XIV, Section 13, and because the statute eliminated Wren’s causes of action during the specified period, her right to a jury trial did not attach. The court concluded that § 895.4801 does not implicate the constitutional jury trial right, reversed the court of appeals’ decision, and remanded for further proceedings on other unresolved issues. View "Wren v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital Milwaukee, Inc." on Justia Law

Melissa Hubbard sought medical treatment from Dr. Carol Neuman for reproductive health issues and was diagnosed with severe endometriosis. Dr. Neuman advised Hubbard to consider removing her left fallopian tube and ovary, but Hubbard did not consent. Dr. Neuman then referred Hubbard to Dr. Michael McGauley for colon surgery. Hubbard alleges that Dr. Neuman and Dr. McGauley planned the surgery without her knowledge, including a recommendation by Dr. Neuman to remove Hubbard’s ovaries, which Dr. McGauley ultimately did during the surgery.The Rock County Circuit Court denied Dr. Neuman’s motion to dismiss Hubbard’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Dr. Neuman argued that she was not the physician who removed Hubbard’s ovaries and thus not liable under Wisconsin’s informed consent statute, WIS. STAT. § 448.30. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision, concluding that Hubbard’s allegations were sufficient to claim that Dr. Neuman was a “physician who treats a patient” under the statute.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that Hubbard’s complaint sufficiently alleged that Dr. Neuman was involved in the treatment process, even though she did not perform the surgery herself. The court emphasized that when examining the sufficiency of a complaint, all facts and reasonable inferences must be accepted as true. The court concluded that Hubbard’s allegations, if true, could entitle her to relief under the informed consent statute, thus Dr. Neuman’s motion to dismiss was properly denied. View "Hubbard v. Neuman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the State Claims Board awarding Appellant $25,000 in compensation after finding Appellant was innocent of a crime for which he was imprisoned, holding that Wis. Stat. 775.05(4) does not compel the Board to make a finding regarding adequacy.Appellant pled no contest to first-degree intentional homicide and spent approximately twenty-six years in prison. After his second guilty plea was vacated Appellant petitioned the State Claims Board for compensation, seeking more than $5.7 million. The Board awarded the maximum under Wis. Stat. 775.05(4). Appellant sought judicial review, arguing that the Board should have made a finding regarding the adequacy of the amount awarded. The circuit court affirmed, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals grafted onto the statute a process the legislature did not sanction. View "Sanders v. State of Wis. Claims Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Femala Fleming's action against Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, Inc. (AAU) as untimely under Wis. Stat. 893.54, holding that Fleming's negligence claim against AAU was not timely filed.Fleming argued that she timely filed her negligence action because the governing statute of limitations was Wis. Stat. 893.587. Specifically, Fleming argued that because she alleged AAU negligently hired, retained, and supervised the man who sexually assaulted her, section 893.587 governed her claim where her injury was "caused by an act that would constitute a violation of" an offense enumerated in chapter 948. The Supreme Court held (1) section 893.587 did not provide the governing statute of limitations for Fleming's negligence claim because Fleming did not allege that AAU committed an enumerated injury-causing act; (2) the governing time limit was the three-year statute of limitations under section 893.54, as extended by Wis. Stat. 893.16; and (3) therefore, the circuit court correctly granted AAU's motion to dismiss. View "Fleming v. Amateur Athletic Union of United States, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the circuit court granting declaratory judgment for Acuity, a mutual insurance company, in this insurance dispute arising from a fatal automobile accident, holding that the court of appeals did not err.When Douglas Curley lost control of his vehicle and crossed the center line he hit another vehicle, killing Michael Shimeta and seriously injuring Terry Scherr. After Curley's insurer paid Shimeta's estate and Scherr $250,000 each both parties sought additional recovery under a policy that Acuity had issued to Shimeta before the accident. At issue was whether Acuity's underinsured motorist coverage entitled Shimeta's estate and Scherr to an additional $250,000 each from Acuity or whether the payments the parties received from Curley's insurer reduced their recovery to $0. The Supreme Court held that Acuity owed Shimeta's estate and Scherr $250,000 each, thus affirming the court of appeals. View "ACUITY v. Estate of Michael Shimeta" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court granting judgment to the Estate of Daniel Keith Huck in this insurance dispute, holding that there was no error.Huck was killed by a motorist while he performed his job duties for the Village of Mount Pleasant. The Estate first received worker's compensation from Huck's employer's worker's compensation insurer (WC insurer) and then a settlement from the tortfeasor's insurer. By receiving the settlement from the tortfeasor the Estate was statutorily obligated to reimburse the WC insurer from the settlement. The Estate did as required and reimbursed the WC insurer $9,718.73 (the disputed amount). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Secura Supreme Insurance Company, from whom Huck had purchased an automobile insurance policy, was not statutorily authorized to reduce its liability limits by the total worker's compensation and tortfeasor settlement payments the Estate initially received but was obligated in part to reimburse. View "Secura Supreme Insurance Co. v. Estate of Huck" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court granting Defendants' motion for the application of Wis. Stat. Chapter 655 and dismissing the wrongful death claim brought by Plaintiff on behalf of the estate of her mother, Anne Oros, and in Plaintiff's capacity as Oros's daughter, holding that dismissal was not warranted.Oros allegedly died as a result of negligence on the part of Divine Savior Healthcare, Inc. Divine Savior and its insurer (collectedly, Defendants) argued that Plaintiff could not bring a wrongful death claim as an adult child of Oros because the liability protections given to certain healthcare providers under Chapter 655 barred the claim. The circuit court concluded that Chapter 655 applied and dismissed the claim. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Plaintiff's wrongful death claim was not subject to Chapter 655 and that dismissal was not warranted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that dismissal under Chapter 655 of Plaintiff's wrongful death claim was not warranted. View "Estate of Anne Oros v. Divine Savior Healthcare Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and instead granting summary judgment in favor of Elliot Brey, holding that Wis. Stat. 632.32(2)(d) does not bar an insurer from requiring that an insured sustain bodily injury or death in order to trigger underinsured (UIM) coverage under an automobile liability insurance policy.The circuit court determined (1) the State Farm automobile liability insurance policy issued to Brey's mother and her husband did not provide uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage to Brey for the death of his father in an automobile accident because Brey was an insured under the policy but his father was not; and (2) Brey could not recover under the policy because he did not sustain bodily injury. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that sections 632.32(1) and (2)(d) bar an insurer from limiting UIM coverage to only those insureds who sustain bodily injury or death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 632.32(2)(d) does not require insurers to extend UIM coverage to an insured for bodily injury or death suffered by a person who was not insured under the policy. View "Brey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing, for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff's complaint alleging malicious prosecution, holding that a withdrawal of a prior proceeding may satisfy the favorable termination element of a malicious prosecution claim.In dismissing Plaintiff's complaint, the circuit court concluded that the complaint failed to establish that the prior proceeding was terminated in Plaintiff's favor. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this Court hereby adopts the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 674, cmt. j addressing whether a withdrawal constitutes a favorable termination; and (2) whether or not the withdrawal in this case constitutes a favorable termination remains a question for the fact-finder. The Supreme Court remanded this case to the circuit court to apply the analysis set forth in this opinion. View "Monroe v. Chase" on Justia Law