Link v.LinkCase number 2020AP1244 (February 1, 2022)
of Link, Plaintiff’s allegations (defamation, property infringement, and intentional and negligent distress of mental distress), Defendant Link puts the plaintiff’s photo on the members-only fetish website with sexually suggestive and degrading captions. It arose from the allegations of posting. After Link sought compensation for personal injury under the homeowner’s policy with the Midwest Family Mutual Insurance (“Midwest”), the Midwest intervened in a proceeding and the merit issue remained bifurcated. rice field. Link then refused to provide an answer to the Midwestern discovery request in the interview process, relying on Article 5 of the Constitutional Amendment. The Midwest called for out-of-indemnity decisions based on policy cooperation and concealment clauses. The Circuit Court ruled summary judgment in the Midwest and ruled that Link was not obliged to defend or indemnify.
The Court of Appeals dismissed and affirmed the defendant’s allegation that the insurer could not deny the coverage under the insured’s invocation of the privilege of Article 5 of the Amendment. Link claimed that he was in “Catch 22” in that the acceptance of negligence in the proceedings harmed his defense in the underlying proceedings, but Link defended and compensated under that policy. Requested. The court explained that the insured has the right to exercise the privilege, but not the right to circumvent the contractual obligations based on it. This reason applies to assessing violations of either the cooperation or concealment clauses. In the Midwest, there was a remedy for link discovery violations under the Discovery Act, but all remedies available under insurance policies were still available. The court further determined that the fact that Link concealed by his non-compliance with the discovery was important and that the non-compliance with the discovery was detrimental to the Midwest. Finally, the court dismissed Link’s public policy debate, and found that, among other things, those accused of malicious criminal activity could not exercise their privileges and were still unable to receive compensation, but were normally insured. Those need to cooperate.
We encourage you to publish your decision.
Brellenthin vs American Family Mutual Insurance CompanyCase number 2020AP1782 (February 8, 2022)
Buleleng Is a first-party compensation case in which the insured’s proceedings were dismissed because they did not file a proceeding within the applicable statute of limitations. On July 9, 2018, the insured suffered home damage from a refrigerator leak and subsequently filed a homeowner’s claim with the American family. The American Family agreed that there was an indemnified loss, but the parties disagreed on the cost of the repair. A public assessor hired by the insured will repair the flood damage in the additional room, match the undamaged item with the replaced item, and pay for painting the damaged floor during mitigation work. Because of the inclusion, we provided a higher repair quote than the American family. The American Family has hired an engineer with the opinion to substantiate the initial repair quote. In particular, the American Family claimed that the damage to the additional room was caused by long-term exposure to water, but this is not covered and the policy is the cost of repairing or replacing undamaged items. Does not cover, but paints scratched floors. The insured later requested an assessment based on the insurance valuation clause, and the American family denied that the assessment was appropriate for damages disputes rather than compensation disputes.
On May 20, 2019, the insured’s loss assesser sent a letter to the American Family, which will not enforce a one-year policy proceeding against us until one year after the claim adjustment process is completed. I confirmed that I understand that. The American family did not specifically respond to the letter. In an email on July 4, 2019, the American family reminded the insured that the one-year loss anniversary will be July 9, 2019. The insured filed a proceeding on January 16, 2020, and the American family sought summary judgment based on one of them. -Restricted year legislation. The Circuit Court granted the motion and found that if one party requested an evaluation and the other party refused, the one-year legislation did not pay tolls and no fair estoppel was applied. ..
The Court of Appeals confirmed.First, the insured’s request for arbitration was not a sufficient step to construct an “act.”[ing] It is an “appraisal” under Section 631.83 (5), and even so, the American family rejected the request for appraisal within 11 days of the request. In addition, the American Family’s decision to indemnify for loss damage was a prerequisite for the valuation process, and there was no such decision. With respect to impartial estoppel, the court is not required by any law or insurance contract of the American family to explicitly respond to the insured’s letter stating their assumption that the statute of limitations will be charged. I decided. The court did not admit fraud, misrepresentation, or other unfair conduct by the American family. In addition, the American family had no legal obligation to remind the insured or its official assessor that the statute of limitations or the statute of limitations was approaching. The restrictions were articulated in American family policy.
this is Perculium decision.
Bray vs. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance CompanyCase number 2019 AP1320, 2022 WI 7 (February 15, 2022)
of Bray, The dispute is eligible for compensation for uninsured drivers (“UIM”) under the vehicle liability insurance issued to mothers and husbands for Bray’s loss of Bray’s father in a car accident. It was whether or not. Bray was qualified as an insured under an insurance policy as a resident of her mother and relatives of her husband. Bray’s father was not insured, and the vehicle in which her father was a passenger in the accident was not insured. The UIM coverage policy language is “Physical injury must meet the following conditions: 1. Maintained by the insured. And 2. Owning and maintaining an uninsured vehicle as a vehicle. , Or caused by an accident involving its use. ” Did. The Court of Appeals reversed and found subsections (1) and (2) (d) of Section 632.32, which is the Wisconsin Comprehensive Law, and the insured covered the scope of UIM by the insured who suffered physical injury or death. Forbidden to limit to only.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin overturned this, and Section 62.32 (2) (d) (definition of coverage for uninsured drivers as stipulated in the Omnibus Act) triggers the insurer to cover UIM coverage. It does not prohibit claiming personal injury or death of the insured. The court has taken a “super-literal” approach to legal interpretation by the Court of Appeals, rather than interpreting it in the context of relevant texts of omnibus law, but rather a single statutory definition of coverage for uninsured drivers. I found that there was an error in the strict interpretation. The entire. Rather, the statutory context and structure of Section 632.32 (2) (d) indicates that the scope of UIM exists only if the insured suffers personal injury or death, and Section 632.32 (2). ) The statutory and legislative history of (d) is an analysis of the plain meaning of the court. In particular, Congress abolished the definition of “uninsured vehicles” in 2011, questioning the definition of “coverage of uninsured vehicles” and the flexibility of insurance companies’ coverage. “Improved” and “UIM coverage has generally narrowed.” Finally, the court said that Bray was derived from State Farm because the allegations of illegal death under the UIM (and UM) policy were a derivative tort and Bray’s father was not an insured under State Farm’s policy. It was decided that the legal proceedings could not be maintained.
This decision is published in 2022WI7.
