Newsletters

Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. is proud to announce the opening of its new Austin, Texas branch office on May 1, 2019. The office will be overseen by Gary Wickert, Jim Busenlener, and Lee Wickert. All three are licensed in Texas, and Gary is Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Civil Trial Law and Personal Injury Law. Lee, a native Texan, will be living and practicing full-time in Austin while Jim and Gary will initially split time in the office and oversee its operation as we bring in new subrogation personnel.

Texas is at the forefront of enacting laws which limit or bar indemnification clauses of contracts in which the Texas legislature perceive one contracting party has an unfair advantage over the other. Texas currently has anti-indemnity statutes for commercial construction, oil and gas, and common carrier transportation. While the fact that your insured may owe contractual indemnity to an at-fault defendant may not legally bar subrogation, indemnity clauses can have a dampening effect on subrogation.

The El Paso Court of Appeals in New Hampshire Ins. Company v. Rodriguez, 2019 WL 168482 (Tex. App. 2019) has announced for the first time that a workers’ comp lien can be reduced and even eliminated by the percentage an employer’s fault bears to the total recovery or judgment in a case, even when the third-party suit or claim is brought by the employee and the carrier is simply seeking reimbursement under § 417.001(b).

Texas has historically been a very favorable venue for workers’ compensation subrogation, but it hasn’t been without its gray areas. In death cases, when an employee dies and surviving family members have received workers’ comp benefits, a careful analysis is required in order to determine and protect the subrogation and future credit rights of a workers’ comp carrier. A new Texas Court of Appeals decision sheds some light on the issue, but questions remain.

Subrogation potential often crashes and burns in the face of exculpatory agreements and liability waivers. On April 12, 2019, Attorney Lee Wickert with Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer’s new Austin, Texas branch office was featured in a New York Times article, found HERE, which looked at the confusing and often surprising effect that these risk-limiting agreements can have on possible third-party tort liability.

On May 1, 2019, MWL celebrates the opening of its Austin, Texas office and thanks its many auto subrogation clients, by offering a special one-hour webinar focusing on the nuances and details of Texas automobile subrogation. Whether you are sharpening your subrogation tools or new to the industry, this is a webinar you won’t want to miss. It will be presented on July 16, 2019 by Attorney Lee Wickert of our new Austin, Texas office beginning at 10:00 a.m. (CDT).

A recent Pennsylvania federal court decision reminds us that when settling third-party cases involving workers’ comp subrogation interests, it’s important to understand all the steps necessary to fully document and enforce any settlement agreement that involves a waiver or termination of any future workers’ comp benefits.

English is the official language of nearly 100 countries, not including the U.S., which doesn’t have an “official language.” America is one of the most linguistically-diverse countries in the world, which explains why we have a lot of confusion about how some words are pronounced or spelled. The word “judgment” joins a long list of words shared between the U.S. and our parent country, Great Britain.

In Youell v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2018 WL 6816772 (Ind. App. 2018), the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision that continues to leave property subrogation involving landlords and tenant up in the air and very subjective, with the “intent” of the parties being determined on a case-by-case basis looking to the terms of the lease and any other admissible and relevant evidence.

The Arizona Court of Appeals announced a year ago that A.R.S. § 23-1023 was not a statute of limitations under Arizona law in regards to the requirement that an employee must file a third-party action within the first year after an accident or obtain a “reassignment” from the employer to do so in the second year. Jackson v. Eagle KMC, LLC, 418 P.3d 997 (Ariz. App. 2018)(opinion vacated, Jackson v. Eagle KMC, LLC, 2019 WL 73631 (Ariz. 2019)). On January 2, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated that decision, confirming that the law of the foreign state under which benefits were paid determines the subrogation and assignment rights of the employer and employee.

We are pleased to announce that this month our New Orleans office celebrated its five year anniversary with the firm. The Louisiana office is overseen by MWL partner, Jim Busenlener. For many years, Jim was one of MWL’s local subrogation counsel in Louisiana. Jim has nearly three decades of experience representing insurers in subrogation, coverage, professional liability, and defense litigation, as well as maritime and commercial litigation. Jim is joined by associates Sara Huffman and Lauren Davis, paralegal Katy Ohlsson, and legal assistant Nancy Gray.

Homeowners’ insurance policies usually contain a provision obligating the carrier to repair or replace the insured’s damaged property with “material of like kind and quality” or with “similar material.” When damage caused by fire, hail, water or other causes results in a small portion of a home or building being damaged (e.g., shingles, siding, etc.), whether and when a carrier must replace non-damaged portions of a building to get a perfect “match” remains a point of contention.

A long-standing tug-of-war over whether a workers’ comp carrier can initiate a third-party subrogation action against a third-party tortfeasor on behalf of an injured employee to recoup the amount paid in workers’ comp benefits where the employee did not independently sue the tortfeasor, did not join in the insurer’s action, and did not assign her cause of action to the insurer, has ended with a disappointing Supreme Court decision.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has confirmed how a third-party tort recovery is to be apportioned procedurally when the employer is found to be comparatively at fault. The confusing state of affairs in Minnesota has undergone changes in recent years, but the new decision in Fish v. Ramler Trucking, Inc., 2019 WL 272865 (Minn. App. Jan. 22, 2019), clarifies once and for all that the “Johnson procedure”, which turned 40 on February 16th, is still applicable and should be followed.

Ashton Kirsch, an attorney at MWL, will be presenting a live webinar on “Subrogation Magic: Creating Something Out of Nothing – MCS-90 Claims Against Uninsured Operators” on March 5, 2019 at 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. (CST). As with all MWL live webinars, they are free to attend and provide Texas CE credits. To learn more about this webinar and/or register for it, click HERE.

Recovery of loss of use is a key element of auto property subrogation. Loss of use coverage usually provides a replacement (rental) vehicle or transportation reimbursement while the insured’s vehicle is being repaired or replaced following a covered loss. States differ as to whether and when a vehicle owner is allowed to recover the value of loss of use of a vehicle during the time a damaged vehicle is being repaired or replaced. Whether you’re a vehicle owner, fleet manager, or insurance claims professional looking to enforce subrogation rights, thoroughly understanding the ramifications and parameters of loss of use claims in all 50 states can make the difference between a large recovery and no recovery at all. This article links to our new 50-state reference chart on Loss of Use In All 50 States.

It seems strange to suggest that one of history’s greatest military battles would have anything in common with modern insurance subrogation, but modern claims and subrogation handling require a symbiosis similar to that utilized by the Greek hoplites. Especially in companies with separate claims and recovery departments, subrogation victory depends on cooperation and the ability to depend on others in the claims chain. Successful subrogation recoveries heavily depend on the protection provided by the claims soldier standing to their left. There must be open and frequent communication between insurance professionals with the single objective of a successful subrogation victory in mind.

On January 11, 2019, the Texas Court of Appeals issued an opinion that will have a profound effect on Texas workers’ comp subrogation. Until now, alleged employer negligence hasn’t been a factor in negotiating workers’ comp liens in Texas. Not only does this ruling run contrary to the clear language of the statutes, it opens the door for Texas plaintiff’s attorneys to concoct theories of employer negligence and argue that your “lien” can now be eliminated based on employer negligence. If the decision stands, Texas will join the ranks of other states whose laws allow the carrier’s lien to be reduced when the employer is at fault.

Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. is pleased to announce that Mingmei Zhu has joined our insurance litigation team as an associate attorney in our Wisconsin office. Mingmei is licensed to practice in California. Her practice will focus on insurance litigation, especially nationwide insurance litigation involving product liability relating to foreign manufacturers, and health insurance subrogation. She is from Changsha, China, a “small” town of 7.5 million people in central China’s Hunan province. She is fluent in Mandarin and brings her skills and experience to bear on MWL’s insurance litigation and product liability cases against foreign manufacturers.

Ashton Kirsch, an attorney at MWL, will be presenting a live webinar on “Subrogation Magic: Creating Something Out of Nothing – MCS-90 Claims Against Uninsured Operators” on March 5, 2019 at 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. (CST). As with all MWL live webinars, they are free to attend and provide Texas CE credits. To learn more about this webinar and/or register for it, click HERE.

On November 30th, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck Alaska, about 10 miles northeast of Anchorage. The damage appears to be limited mainly to property loss – thanks to Alaska’s stringent building codes and standards. While an “Act of God” would typically not allow for subrogation recovery, claims involving structural damage or require structural engineering should be investigated for subrogation potential. Alaska has a statute of repose for real property improvements that bars any claim ten years after date of completion of the work, so any subrogation claim must be made prior to that time expiring.

The Illinois Supreme Court has somewhat clarified an injured employee’s rights to pursue a third-party case by intervening into a third-party subrogation suit filed by the workers’ comp carrier, even after the personal injury Statute of Limitations runs.

A recent New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division decision has ostensibly settled a long-standing subrogation question regarding whether a worker’s compensation carrier is entitled to subrogation and/or reimbursement from a third-party tortfeasor who is covered by New Jersey no-fault insurance, even if the employee doesn’t meet the verbal threshold allowing them to sue the tortfeasor.

We would like to thank our clients and local counsel for a wonderful year and wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and a blessed Holiday Season. Regardless of what Christmas means to you, we hope your Christmas is full of holiday cheer shared with family and friends. For us at Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C., Christmas is just the beginning – a simple, yet wonderful reminder of Christ’s humble beginning as a human child in this world. It’s only a beginning because His birth merely set the stage for the power, glory, and salvation that would be revealed in His life, death, and resurrection come Easter morning. An important part of the holiday season is remembering those who make the holidays meaningful to us. We would like to wish you and your family all the happiness and prosperity this Season can bring and may it follow you throughout the coming year!

While insurers are aware of the mounting claims and damages from California’s destructive Carr Fire and Mendocino Complex Fire, many are unaware that on November 13, 2018, a group of law firms known as the “Northern California Fire Lawyers” filed a class-action lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric, a Northern California utility company that provides natural gas and electric services to approximately ten million people throughout a 70,000 square mile service area. Insurers should understand that any damages caused by the Northern California fires may not have been caused by an “act of God.” Instead, insurers should identify these claims as having potential subrogation.

In the world of claims handling and insurance subrogation, knowledge is power. We often see the aftermath of clients waiving significant subrogation interests or paying on claims that, had the law or issues been recognized and understood, would have turned out differently. Information is the most valuable commodity our industry possesses, and its free for the taking. All that is required is a minor investment of time and a willingness to learn.

A.O. Smith Corporation, a manufacturer of water heaters located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, recently announced a recall of over 616,000 water heaters that are being blamed for causing numerous house fires due to the gas burner (flame arrestor) screen on several models developing a tear, resulting in excessive radiant heat which can cause a fire hazard if it is installed on a wood or other combustible floor.

Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. (“MWL”) is pleased to announce that Katherine Sandoval has joined our insurance litigation team as an associate attorney in our Orange, California office. Katherine’s litigation experience adds to a wealth of experience at MWL’s very busy California office, which is already teeming with talent and expertise.

Pedestrian deaths now make up 16% of the total traffic deaths in the U.S. In an effort to address this growing public safety concern, state legislatures are scrambling to pass new laws that regulate and define who is at fault when a pedestrian is struck. To effectively handle personal injury and workers’ compensation subrogation claims you must be familiar with the laws that govern the liability of motorists and the duties of pedestrians when crossing the street. This article contains a link to our Pedestrian and Crosswalk Laws In All 50 States chart that covers the laws that regulate the relationship between and the duties of motor vehicles and pedestrians crossing the street for all 50 states.

The federal government mandates that trucking companies operating interstate comply with their financial responsibility obligations by having an insurance policy that includes a MCS-90 Endorsement, a qualifying surety bond, or a sufficient business operation for self-insurance. By far, the most common mode of compliance is the MCS-90 Endorsement. This endorsement requires the issuing insurance carrier to pay a claim when an injured party obtains a judgment against their insured, in situations where coverage is denied or not otherwise warranted. This endorsement shifts the risk of loss away from the public by guaranteeing that an injured party will be compensated, even if the insurance carrier has a valid defense based upon a condition in the policy.

Subrogation in the Hawkeye State appears to be as simple and routine as driving through Iowa itself. But, applying the statute is more akin to driving through a cyclone. Simply stated, the simplicity of subrogating workers’ compensation benefits in Iowa is an illusion riddled with confusing traps and pitfalls that can destroy a workers’ compensation carrier’s subrogation rights. Fortunately, these landmines can be easily side-stepped and avoided by instituting a few simple procedures. In this article, we will address three of biggest traps you need to avoid to obtain a successful recovery in Iowa.

In many insurance claims involving deer collisions, the insured is struck by the swerving car or truck or it comes upon wreckage in the road that resulted from the collision. Subrogating the vehicle that swerved to avoid the deer is often an after-thought, if a thought at all. However, aggressive subrogation professionals should remember that prudent drivers who react appropriately when confronted with a deer in the headlights can usually avoid the devastation and carnage that results from acting inappropriately.

Where there’s smoke, there’s subrogation. At least it often works out that way. The adage is certainly true in the case of Gree dehumidifiers. If you have anything to do with property insurance, you have most likely been exposed to multiple claims involving Gree dehumidifiers. Gree’s mistakes have cost American homeowners and property insurance companies well over $30 million. These translate into subrogation opportunities that should not be ignored. There’s also an important lesson here for other manufacturers as to how not to respond to a product defect.

Everyone in Michigan is financially frustrated with the high price of auto insurance. Recently, Detroit Mayor, Mike Duggan, along with eight other motorists filed a suit in U.S. District Court in an effort to expedite removal of Michigan’s no-fault system. The litigation comes as insurance premiums continue to rise, and after two bills were presented in the Michigan Legislature aimed at eliminating the no-fault system. The average cost of insurance premiums in Detroit is $6,197 per driver, whereas the average in California’s tort jurisdiction is $1,518. Removing the no-fault system would return Michigan to a tort jurisdiction and rates are predicted to drop by 50% if that happens.

Gary L. Wickert will be presenting a MWL webinar on “The Complete Guide to Selecting, Hiring, and Using the Right Expert in Subrogation Cases” on October 23, 2018 from 10:00 – 11:30 a.m. (CDT). MWL webinars are free to attend and are open to all who want to attend. To learn more about this webinar or to register for it, click HERE.

We only hear half of what we listen to. Perhaps that’s why most people instinctively use tautology when they write or speak. Tautology is the use of different words to say the same thing or repeating the same thing twice, often in the same sentence. Most people don’t even know they’re doing it. Tautology clutters otherwise simple communication. It doesn’t diminish clarity, but it should be avoided in formal writing and speaking. Insurance and subrogation professionals communicate for a living and should be aware of one of the most common mistakes made in professional and interpersonal communication.

Even non-standard auto insurers enjoy getting checks in the mail. The effective subrogation of Med Pay, PIP, UM/UIM, and collision claims by non-standard auto insurers means money coming into a segment of the insurance industry that historically has been better at paying it out. The reasons this segment has been somewhat subrogation-challenged are many but is emphasized by the fact that the non-standard auto insurance market is highly-specialized, geographically-segregated, and transaction heavy. It’s time for non-standard auto carriers to aggressively step up their subrogation game and pursue those responsible for causing losses and claims so they can return those claim dollars to the carriers that paid them and insureds who desperately need them.

We are just as guilty as everyone else. Words matter, and in our industry, they are our tools. Therefore, using the right words would seem to be a priority. This article will set the record straight on whether subrogable is or isn’t a word and addresses a handful of insurance terms that are most often misused and misinterpreted as well.

Work Comp Third-Party Settlement Not Subject to Aitken Reduction. On August 2, 2018, the Arizona Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals with regard to settlement situations. No longer is an employee able to settle without notice to the workers’ comp carrier and quickly seek a court determination of the employer’s percentage of fault.

Gary L. Wickert will be presenting a MWL webinar on “The Complete Guide to Selecting, Hiring, and Using the Right Expert in Subrogation Cases” on September 25, 2018 from 10:00 – 11:30 a.m. (CDT). MWL webinars are free to attend and are open to all who want to attend. To learn more about this webinar or to register for it, click HERE.

On May 1, 2018, Pele spoke, and Hawaii’s Big Island was rocked with the first of more than 50 earthquakes, representing the collapse of the crater floor at Puu Oo, the open vent below Kilauea’s summit crater and lava lake. Rivers of lava destroyed over 600 homes, making it the most destructive eruption in modern times. Even before the lava had cooled to form a tomb of solid rock over the once thriving neighborhoods, many escaped from their homes with their most valuable possession — their homeowner’s policy. There is no such thing as volcano or lava flow insurance, but it is possible for an all-risk homeowner’s policy to provide some coverage.

Georgia has joined fifteen other states which have outlawed the use of hand-held cellphones and mobile devices while driving. A new law signed by Governor Nathan Deal makes watching movies, shooting video, and even the mere “holding” of hand-held devices while in the vehicle—even while stopped—illegal. House Bill 673 allows drivers to talk on the phone or text if they use hands-free technology. It was signed May 2 and took effect on July 1.

A generation ago, subrogation professionals were almost unheard of. Over the years, however, as prudent businesses and insurance companies began to insist on their statutory and contractual rights of subrogation, the profession has grown. On February 8, 2018, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion that grants subrogation adjusters and claims handlers the ability to sign medical expense affidavits under § 18.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Subrogation professionals often assume that if a state employs or recognizes the “Made Whole Doctrine”, then the insured must be totally reimbursed for its out-of-pocket deductible and any uninsured losses before a carrier can subrogate. Unfortunately, this over simplistic view and application of the Made Whole Doctrine is not only erroneous, but it also results in reduced subrogation recoveries for carriers across the country. The obligation of an insurer to reimburse some or all of its insured’s deductible has very little to do with the Made Whole Doctrine in most states. Daniels v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3424941 (Wash. App. 2018), a brand-new decision by the Washington Court of Appeals affirms this.