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.