WAJ Clemons Outline
4
John C. Peterson Peterson, Berk & Cross, S.C. 200 East College Avenue P.O. Box 2700 Appleton, WI 54912-2700 (920) 831-0300 [email protected] www.foxriverlawyers.com SETTING UP “THE STING”: WHEN THE POLICY LIMIT IS NOT THE LIMIT - SETTING UP THE RECALCITRANT, THIRD PARTY CARRIER FACT SCENARIO: The plai ntiff was helpi ng a friend install a new window in his friend’s house. In need of some hardware in the trunk of his car , he went down to his car which was par ked a few feet in fron t of a pickup truck . The pickup truck had a large hook below the front bumper for pul ling loads in reverse. It was daylight and t he weather was not an issue. The defenda nt was approachi ng the two parked vehicle s in the same direction they were facing with his wife and young son in the car heading for a weekend campout. He was not intoxicated or otherwise impair ed, he was not on a cell phone, he was not speeding, and he had no explanation for why he drifted to the right curb and rearen ded the parked truck. The hook on the front of the truck was driven through the lower leg of the plainti ff. The damage to the plainti ff’s leg was irre parabl e, and it was amputated below the knee in emergency surgery, with an imperfect result, later that day. We learned within two months that the defendant was covered by an underlying liability limit of $500,000 with an umbrella of $1,000,000 in policies issued by Auto Owners Insuranc e Company. A young boy was standi ng next to the plainti ff, and he sus tai ned signif ica nt, but not cat ast rophic injuries. Approxima tel y 8 months pos t- accident, the two victims conducted a mediation to which the carrier was invited but did not attend. At the mediation i t was agreed how the $1,500,000 would be divided between our client and the minor . All docume ntati on of the plaintif f’s past and future med ical expense and past and future earnings loss had been submitted to the carrier in their copies of the mediation st atements. Approximately a month later, we requested a response, and Auto Owner s responded that they wo uld need an addit ional mon th to respond . Two weeks later we were told by the adjuster that they might settle our portion of the claim, but then would continue t o contest the child’s claim. We responded that our claim alone had a potential verdict value well in excess of the policy limits, and we were only willing to accept less out of con sideration for the child and his injuries. When Auto Owners still had not responded to the demands 7-8 weeks after they were provided to them, the demands were withdrawn and the respective cases put in suit. Approximately two weeks later, we were contacted by counsel who had been retained personally by the Auto Owners’ insured beseeching us to extend the offer to settle for the limits so he could approach the carrier on behalf of the insured and demand that the case be settled to avoid t he insured’s exposure t o personal liabilit y. We agreed to extend t he demand until the end of that week, but again the demand was refused by Auto Owners. At the earliest allowable time, an “offer of settlement” was served on behalf of the plaintiff for $2,000,000. The statutory time period expired wi thout response fr om Auto Owners, and the offer was withdrawn.
Transcript of WAJ Clemons Outline
8/2/2019 WAJ Clemons Outline
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/waj-clemons-outline 1/4
John C. PetersonPeterson, Berk & Cross, S.C.
200 East College AvenueP.O. Box 2700
Appleton, WI 54912-2700(920) 831-0300
SETTING UP “THE STING”: WHEN THE POLICY LIMIT IS NOT THELIMIT - SETTING UP THE RECALCITRANT, THIRD PARTY CARRIER
FACT SCENARIO: The plaintiff was helping a friend install a new window in hisfriend’s house. In need of some hardware in the trunk of his car, he went down to his car which was parked a few feet in front of a pickup truck. The pickup truck had a largehook below the front bumper for pulling loads in reverse. It was daylight and the weather was not an issue. The defendant was approaching the two parked vehicles in the same
direction they were facing with his wife and young son in the car heading for a weekendcampout. He was not intoxicated or otherwise impaired, he was not on a cell phone, hewas not speeding, and he had no explanation for why he drifted to the right curb andrearended the parked truck. The hook on the front of the truck was driven through thelower leg of the plaintiff. The damage to the plaintiff’s leg was irreparable, and it wasamputated below the knee in emergency surgery, with an imperfect result, later that day.
We learned within two months that the defendant was covered by an underlyingliability limit of $500,000 with an umbrella of $1,000,000 in policies issued by AutoOwners Insurance Company. A young boy was standing next to the plaintiff, and hesustained significant, but not catastrophic injuries. Approximately 8 months post-accident, the two victims conducted a mediation to which the carrier was invited but didnot attend. At the mediation it was agreed how the $1,500,000 would be divided betweenour client and the minor. All documentation of the plaintiff’s past and future medicalexpense and past and future earnings loss had been submitted to the carrier in their copiesof the mediation statements. Approximately a month later, we requested a response, andAuto Owners responded that they would need an additional month to respond. Twoweeks later we were told by the adjuster that they might settle our portion of the claim, but then would continue to contest the child’s claim. We responded that our claim alonehad a potential verdict value well in excess of the policy limits, and we were only willingto accept less out of consideration for the child and his injuries.
When Auto Owners still had not responded to the demands 7-8 weeks after theywere provided to them, the demands were withdrawn and the respective cases put in suit.Approximately two weeks later, we were contacted by counsel who had been retained personally by the Auto Owners’ insured beseeching us to extend the offer to settle for thelimits so he could approach the carrier on behalf of the insured and demand that the case be settled to avoid the insured’s exposure to personal liability. We agreed to extend thedemand until the end of that week, but again the demand was refused by Auto Owners.At the earliest allowable time, an “offer of settlement” was served on behalf of the plaintiff for $2,000,000. The statutory time period expired without response from AutoOwners, and the offer was withdrawn.
8/2/2019 WAJ Clemons Outline
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/waj-clemons-outline 2/4
Depositions of all of the parties were taken about a month after the offer of settlement was rejected. Two weeks later the carrier offered the policy limit, but the plaintiffs rejected the belated offer. Approximately two years post-accident, almost ayear after the case was filed, Auto Owners hired an investigator to go into the plaintiff’sneighborhood inquiring about what activities they observed the plaintiff undertaking.Approximately 18 months after the filing of the statutory offer and 4 months before trial
the case settled for $1,980,000. In light of the child’s settlement for $200,000, the plaintiff received $680,000 in excess of Auto Owners’ coverage.
OUTLINE OF STRATEGICAL CONSIDERATIONS:
I. Applicable law
A. §807.01, “Settlement Offers,” provides, in relevant part, as follows;
(3) After issue is joined but at least 20 days before trial, the plaintiff may
serve upon the defendant a written offer of settlement for the sum, or property, or to the effect therein specified with costs. If the defendant acceptsthe offer and serves notice thereof in writing, before trial and within 10 daysafter receipt of the offer, the defendant may file the offer, with proof of service of the notice of acceptance, with the clerk of court. If notice of acceptance is not given, the offer cannot be given as evidence nor mentionedon the trial. If the offer of settlement is not accepted and the plaintiff recovers a more favorable judgment, the plaintiff shall recover double theamount of the taxable costs.(4) If there is an offer of settlement by a party under this section which is notaccepted and the party recovers a judgment which is greater than or equal tothe amount specified in the offer of settlement, the party is entitled to interestat the annual rate of 12% on the amount recovered from the date of the offer of settlement until the amount is paid. …
B. It is well settled law in Wisconsin that a third party liability carrier’s duty isto defend and indemnify its insured, and a tort victim has no claim for relief against the tortfeasor’s liability carrier for failing to settle his/her claim. Bruheim v. Little, 103 Wis. 2d 96, 307 N.W.2d 276 (1981); Kranzush v.
Badger Mutual Casualty Company, 103 Wis. 2d 56, 307 N.W.2d 256 (1981).
C. It is also well settled Wisconsin law, however, that a claim for relief can ariseon behalf of an insured if his liability carrier fails to act in good faith ininvestigating the accident, defending its insured, and negotiating with thethird party for the protection of its insured’s excess liability. Alt v. American
Family Mutual Insurance Company, 71 Wis. 2d 340, 237 N.W.2d 706 (1976); Howard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 60 Wis.2d224, 208 N.W.2d 442 (1973); and Baker v. Northwestern National Casualty
Company, 22 Wis. 2d 77, 125 N.W.2d 370 (1963).
8/2/2019 WAJ Clemons Outline
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/waj-clemons-outline 3/4
II. The first prong in plaintiff’s two prong strategy to recover in excess of the policy limits involved setting up the future first party bad faith suit assumingthere was an excess recovery.
A. Here we were fortunate to have a WATL (n/k/a WAJ) member representing the insured with whom we could cooperate. If not, try
sending a letter to the defense counsel requesting that someone contactyou to discuss a possible settlement of the insured’s excess liabilityirrespective of the policy limits. Defense counsel and the carrier under Baker v. Northwestern Nationional Casualty Company, supra, do have aduty to keep the insured timely and adequately informed of any offers andon the progress of any negotiations.
B. We knew that in any subsequent first party bad faith action, we, as plaintiff’s counsel, would be a witness. Early on after filing suit, weengaged counsel for the plaintiff in the presumed bad faith case he wouldeventually have on assignment from the defendant-insured. Obviously,
we chose competent, credible counsel and made our intentions known tothe defense.
C. The case settled shortly after the mediation between the plaintiff and AutoOwners, and in our mediation statement we very carefully laid out thefactual predicate for the potential bad faith suit. We intentionally includedthe first mediation statement addressing liability and damages in theappendix as an apparent afterthought.
III. The second prong of plaintiff’s strategy was irrespective of bad faith and arosefrom the language of the policies and our reliance on §807.01, Wis. Stats., theoffer of settlement statute.
A. Read the policy provisions carefully to discover exactly what coverage is provided. Although our underlying liability policy arguably provided for coverage of interest incurred on a verdict/judgment, that issue given the policy language was debatable. The umbrella policy provided, as follows:
“With respect to any occurrence … we will … pay, in addition toour limit of liability, the following expenses: (1) All costs weincur in the settlement of any claim or defense of any suit … (5)Any other reasonable expenses incurred at our request.”
B. When defense counsel took the position that this language did notspecifically provide for payment of interest we responded, as follows:
“Although the Auto Owners’ umbrella does not specifically speak to pre-judgment interest under Wisconsin’s “offer of settlement”statute, in light of Auto Owners’ refusal to settle despite [your insured’s personal counsel’s] demand to the contrary, this policy provision unambiguously makes them responsible on all of theinterest on any verdict without regard to the amount. As our
8/2/2019 WAJ Clemons Outline
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/waj-clemons-outline 4/4
Supreme Court has said, “since the insurer controls the litigationand by delaying payment may influence the accumulation of interest, it should bear the entire expense of such delay.” McPhee
v. American Motorists Insurance Company, 57 Wis. 2d 669, 205 N.W.2d 152 (1973).”
C. Our position was that the “offer of settlement” in the amount of $2,000,000 had been filed 22 months before the assigned trial date.Without regard to bad faith, if the case proceeded to trial and the verdictwas for, $3,000,000, the interest would be $660,000. If the verdict were$4,000,000 interest would be $880,000.
D. Finally, it was our position that even after payment, upon verdict, of theremaining policy limit, $1,300,000, and the payment of interest on theentire verdict, whatever that might be, the insurer would still beconfronted by the assigned, first party bad faith suit over the insured’sexcess, personal liability.
