Insurance Coverage Issues

Our attorneys are regularly consulted by businesses, corporations, individuals and insurance companies to give advice on insurance coverage issues, and when necessary, litigate those issues in the trial court, state Courts of Appeal, and before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Our firm has been involved in several landmark decisions on insurance policy interpretation and coverage issues. We have substantial experience in the handling of "bad faith" claims and litigation where extra-contractual damages and punitive damage recovery are sought.

Representative appellate experience in these areas includes the following:

Heikkinen. V. United Services Automobile Association (Interpretation of insurance policy issued by Archdiocese found by trial court to provide coverage for PJM client, church volunteer acting within scope of volunteer duties.)

Novak v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
(Held that insurer had no duty to defend upon exhaustion of the policy limit by payment of settlement to third party where language of policy expressly provided that the insurer would have no duty to defend after its limit of liability had been offered.)

Richie v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
(Interpretation of recovery limiting provision in automobile insurance policy, where the court held that if only one person received bodily injury in the automobile accident, the “each person” limitation in the policy applies no matter how many others may derive secondary claims from those injuries.)

Doyle v. Engelke(Holding that matters outside the underlying complaint would not be considered in determining the CGL insurer’s duty to defend and interpreting the policy as not affording coverage for slander.)

Martin v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co.(Interpretation and application of stacking clause in an insurance policy with non-named insureds.)

Meyer v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.(Interpretation and application of UIM coverage in insurance policies where the court held that UIM coverage can be stacked with primary coverage on separate vehicles.)

Sprangers v. Greatway Ins. Co.(Interpretation of exclusions in insurance policy where court held that insurer had no duty to point out the exclusion to the insured.)

Hulsey v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.(Interpretation and application of stacking clause in an insurance policy.)

Contact James T. Murray, Jr. in our Milwaukee office, or Michael Crooks in Madison.