Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Water Well, which was insured under a commercial general liability primary policy (CGL policy) with Consolidated Insurance Company, was sued by Argonaut Insurance Company. The complaint alleged that Water Well and its employees were negligent in the installation and reinstallation of a water pump and breached their contractual obligations. Water Well tendered its defense to its insurer. Consolidated denied Water Well’s defense tender, stating that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Water Well under the CGL policy. After settling with Argonaut, Water Well filed suit against Consolidated, alleging that Consolidated breached its duty to defend Water Well in the action initiated by Argonaut. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Consolidated, concluding that “there is no covered claim and therefore there was no duty to defend.” Applying the four-corners rule, the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Water Well’s request to craft a limited exception to the four-corners rule is rejected; and (2) Consolidated did not breach its duty to defend Water Well because certain exclusions in the CGL policy eliminated coverage. View "Water Well Solutions Serv. Group Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Co." on Justia Law

From 2007 to 2009, a number of lawsuits involving Plaintiff, the trustee of two trusts, were filed throughout the country. Plaintiff asked his professional liability insurer, Houston Casualty Company, to defend him in the lawsuits. Houston Casualty determined that it had no obligation to either defend or indemnify Plaintiff in connection with any of the lawsuits. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Houston Casualty alleging, inter alia, breach of the duty to defend and bad faith. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Houston Casualty, concluding that the insurer had not breached its duty to defend Plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complaints and counterclaim against Plaintiff did not allege facts which, if proven, would constitute claims covered under the policy Houston Casualty issued to Plaintiff, and therefore, Houston Casualty did not breach its duty when it refused to defend Plaintiff in the lawsuits at issue. View "Marks v. Houston Cas. Co." on Justia Law

The complex insurance coverage dispute arose out of a 2007 fire that destroyed portions of a home that was still under construction. Fontana Builders, Inc., the construction contractor, and James and Suzy Accola, the occupants/presumptive purchasers, had separate insurance policies. The Accolas settled with Chubb Insurance Co., the insurer that provided their homeowner’s policy. Assurance Company of America, which had issued a builder’s risk policy to Fontana, denied all coverage for the fire. Fontana commenced this action against Assurance alleging breach of the insurance contract and bad faith failure to pay under the policy. Fontana’s lender, AnchorBank, FSB, eventually intervened. After a retrial, the jury found that the Assurance policy did not provide coverage for Fontana’s fire loss, concluding that the Chubb policy “applied” to the underlying facts so as to terminate Fontana’s builder’s risk coverage. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that that the homeowner’s policy issued by Chubb to the Accolas did not apply so as to terminate Fontana’s builder’s risk policy from Assurance. Remanded. View "Fontana Builders, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of Am." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether an element of Wis. Stat. 948.075(1r) - use of a “computerized communication system” - was satisfied when Defendant used his cell phone to exchange texts with, and receive picture messages from, the fourteen-year-old victim. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime in violation of section 948.075(1r). The court of appeals reversed, sua sponte holding that a jury instruction misdirected the jury by asking it to determine whether the cell phone itself constituted the computerized communication system rather than asking whether Defendant’s uses of the cell phone constituted communication via a computerized communication system. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the jury instruction here accurately stated the law, and even if the instruction was erroneous, it was harmless error; (2) section 948.075 is not unconstitutionally vague; and (3) the court of appeals erred when it exercised its discretion authority to reverse Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. McKellips" on Justia Law

Since 1938, the City of Milwaukee has required its city employees to comply with a residency requirement. The residency requirement is set forth in section 5-02 of the City’s charter. In 2013, the Legislature enacted Wis. Stat. 66.0502, which bans residency requirements. Despite enactment of the statute, the City continued to enforce its residency requirement, claiming it had the authority to do so under the state Constitution’s home rule amendment. The Milwaukee Police Association sought relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that the City can no longer enforce its residency requirement because section 66.0502 trumps section 5-02 of the City’s charter. With respect to Association’s section 1983 claim, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision not to award relief or damages, concluding that because section 66.0502 did not involve a matter of statewide concern and did not affect all local government units uniformly, it did not trump the City’s ordinance. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) section 66.0502 precludes the City from enforcing its residency requirement; and (2) the Police Association is not entitled to relief or damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 because the Association failed to meet the requirements necessary to prevail on a section 1983 claim. View "Milwaukee Police Ass’n v. City of Milwaukee" on Justia Law

Minors John Doe 56 and John Doe 57 and their parents filed suit against Dr. Van de Loo and related entities, claiming medical malpractice. Specifically, the Does alleged that they were sexually assaulted during a medical examination. The circuit court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Does’ allegations could constitute an actionable medical malpractice claim; and (2) the statute of limitations barred the Does’ medical malpractice claims, as the claims accrued on the date Dr. Van de Loo last physically touched the Does during their genital examinations, rather than when the Does learned that Dr. Van de Loo’s genital examination may, in fact, have constituted a criminal act. View "John Doe 56 v. Mayo Clinic Health System - Eau Claire Clinic, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1997, James Vandenberg and three other individuals (collectively, the intervenors) acquired real estate as tenants-in-common. During the time they owned the property, James accumulated personal debts resulting in encumbrances being filed against the property. In 2011, James and the intervenors contracted to sell their property to Van De Hey Real Estate, LLC on land contract. Prince Corporation subsequently filed a garnishment summons and complaint seeking to garnish Van De Hey’s final payment as partial satisfaction of its judgment against James. The intervenors intervened in the action. The circuit court entitled Prince to garnish 1/4 of the full contract price. The intervenors then impleaded the Department of Revenue (DOR) as an interested party and moved for partition. The circuit court entered an order holding that the Department of Revenue (DOR), rather than Prince, was entitled to garnish 1/4 of the land contract proceeds due to the DOR’s superior tax warrants. The court also denied the interveners’ request to partition the real estate. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the DOR was entitled to garnish from the final land contract payment the amount that James could require be paid to him from that payment; and (2) the circuit court did not err in refusing to partition the property. Remanded. View "Prince Corp. v. Vandenberg" on Justia Law

Defendant and the State entered into a plea agreement under which Defendant would plead no contest to certain counts brought against him, while other counts would be dismissed and read into the record for purposes of sentencing and recitation. At a plea hearing, the court concluded that Defendant’s pleas were made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary fashion and ordered judgments of guilt. Defendant was then sentenced. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief seeking to withdraw his no contest pleas. Specifically, Defendant claimed that his pleas were unknowing because he did not understand the effect the read-in charge could have at sentencing. The postconviction court denied Defendant’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the postconviction court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before it determined whether Defendant had entered his pleas in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary fashion; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction motion to withdraw his plea because he was correctly informed of and understood the effect of the read-in charges at sentencing. View "State v. Sulla" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Wisconsin Supreme Court's review was whether the Circuit Court erred when it granted the State's motion to join intimidation charges involving two victims, a mother and her daughter, with already-pending sexual assault charges where the daughter was the victim. The circuit court held that joinder was proper under Wis. Stat. 971.12(1)(2009-10); the court of appeals reversed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. After review, the Supreme Court held that joinder was proper because the charges joined were "2 or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan," the charges were "connected together," and the charges constituted parts of a "common scheme or plan." The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the jury's verdicts finding Luis Salinas guilty of: (1) repeated sexual assault of a child; (2) second-degree sexual assault; (3) second-degree sexual assault of a child under the age of 16; (4) intimidation of witness, M.S.; and (5) intimidation of witness, V.G. View "Wisconsin v. Salinas" on Justia Law

The charges of first-degree sexual assault against defendant-appellant Stephen LeMere arose out of events that occurred after a gathering in the Eau Claire on Friday evening, May 13, 2011, at the home of J.C. and his wife, A.C. LeMere was then 24. Also present that evening was C.R.C., J.C.'s 12-year-old sister. During the gathering, LeMere and another visitor drank the majority of two 30 packs of beer, in addition to other alcohol in the house. LeMere also took a narcotic pain killer. Although his memory of the evening became "fuzzy," LeMere recalled playing drinking games throughout the night. Early the next morning, LeMere sent text messages to C.R.C., and when she refused to have sex with her, he placed her in a choke hold, put a knife to her throat, fondled her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about what happened. C.R.C. did tell someone about it, and charges were later filed against him. In "Padilla v. Kentucky," (559 U.S. 356 (2010)), the federal Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to inform a client whether his plea to a criminal charge carries a risk of deportation. Here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court assessed "Padilla" in a different context: did the Sixth Amendment require defense counsel to inform a client about the possibility of civil commitment, under Wis. Stat. ch. 980, when the client entered a plea to a sexually violent offense? LeMere wanted to withdraw his plea, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for not informing him of the possibility of civil commitment following the confinement portion of his sentence under Chapter 980. The Wisconsin Court concluded that counsel's performance was not deficient in this case, and affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. View "Wisconsin v. LeMere" on Justia Law