Arizona law imposes strict liability on dog owners for injuries and bites caused by their dog pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 11-1020 and 11-1025. Section 11-1020 states “injury to any person or damage to any property by a dog while at large shall be the full responsibility of the dog owner or person or persons responsible…
In John Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, No. 13-3783 (2014), “John Doe” settled his sexual abuse claims against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee after participating in voluntary mediation. Doe signed a settlement agreement containing a confidentiality clause, another clause providing that the parties could not introduce as evidence in later proceedings matters including views expressed or…
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently had occasion to address the issue of whether “subjective” and/or “objective” intent to cause injury must be found in the context of an intentional act exclusion. In Fetherstone v. Parks, 2014 WI App. 2, the Court interpreted an American Family insurance policy to determine whether a showing of both…
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently expanded the scope of coverage under auto policies when it held an auto insurer must defend and indemnify a permissive user of the auto who is sued by the named insured. Blasing v. Zurich Amer. Ins. Co., 2014 WI 73, aff’g 2013 WI App 27, 346 Wis.2d 30, 827 N.W.2d…
On July 23, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC, 2014 WI 86. Remarkably, the decision appears to adopt the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). According to the minority opinion, the Court adopted Twombly without it having been briefed…
In an unanimous decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, an asbestos exclusion included in a business owner’s policy was found to preclude coverage. See Phillips v. Parmelee, 2013 WI 105. A review of the Phillips decision reveals that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is willing to uphold insurance policy exclusions if they are written in a…
A recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision runs counter to it’s usual pro-carrier rulings and held that an insured may stack uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) coverage from different polices issued from 2009 through 2011. The decision involved an issue of law that has been in constant flux for the last few years. This article will discuss the history…
Most automobile insurance policies include a provision providing that coverage will only apply if “bodily injury” or “property damage” arises out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an automobile. This requirement has long been the source of the application of unusual facts and arguments. Use of a vehicle seems fairly simplistic, but the various…
Kubert v. Best and Colonna, Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Docket No. A-1128-12T4 FACTS Plaintiffs were seriously injured by an 18-year-old driver who was texting while driving and crossed the centerline of the road. The plaintiffs’ clams for compensation from the young driver had been settled and were no longer part of the…
Liability insurance policies provide insurance coverage only for accidental events and not for personal injury or property damage caused by an intentional act of their insured. To that end, insurance carriers generally include language in their policies providing coverage only if damages are caused by an “occurrence”. The term “occurrence” is generally defined as an…