May 24, 2012

Supreme Court of Wisconsin Expands Bad Faith Law

On June 22, 2010, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued a unanimous decision in Roehl Transport, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 2010 WI 49 (“Roehl Transport”), in which the court held that an insurer “may be liable for the tort of bad faith when [it] fails to act in good faith and exposes the insured to liability for sums within the deductible amount.” Id., ¶57.

In Roehl Transport, the insured negotiated a $2 million Truckers/Auto Insurance Policy with a $500,000 deductible. After a personal injury claim against the insured resulted in a $830,400 judgment, the insured brought a bad faith claim, asserting insurer mishandling of the claim resulted in a failure to settle for less than the deductible amount. The bad faith claim went to trial, with the jury finding the insurer’s conduct was in bad faith and awarding the insured $127,000 in compensatory damages. The jury verdict and resulting judgment were appealed directly to the supreme court.

On appeal, the Roehl Transport noted that Wisconsin law already recognized three types of bad faith claims:

  • In the third-party context for failure to settle where the ultimate judgment exposes the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limit;
  • In the first party context for failure to satisfy the insured’s claim; and
  • In the worker’s compensation context for failure to reimburse the claimant.

The supreme court rejected the argument that Wisconsin law of bad faith was limited to these three categories, and held that Wisconsin law recognizes a bad faith claim when a verdict against an insured in an underlying third-party liability claim is less than policy limits but costs the insured its deductible. The Roehl Transport court also determined that public policy did not preclude this type of bad faith claim, and found that the jury’s verdict was supported by credible evidence in the record.

The court also made two additional rulings on damages. First, the Roehl Transport court held that the insured was entitled to attorney fees as a matter of law upon a jury finding of bad faith, and that the trial court had erred in not entering an award of attorney fees. In addition, the supreme court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the punitive damages claim.

©2012 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

About the Author

Chair of the Litigation and Risk Management Practice Group

Heidi is a Shareholder and Chair of the Litigation and Risk Management Practice Group. Her practice focuses on insurance coverage litigation, commercial disputes, constitutional law, construction disputes, environmental litigation, and complex litigation.

Heidi lectures on a wide variety of topics including environmental insurance coverage, environmental issues, bad faith litigation, motor carrier issues, and advertising injury liability/personal injury liability coverage.

She is a member of the American and Milwaukee Bar Association, the State Bar of Wisconsin, the Defense...

414-287-1258

About the Author

Phil is a Shareholder in the Litigation and Risk Management Group of von Briesen & Roper, s.c. He has extensive experience in several areas of civil litigation, including coverage, bad faith and casualty matters for insurance companies, the defense of legal malpractice and products liability claims, and appellate work. Phil’s litigation experience also extends to employment cases and experience serving as an arbitrator. In 2006, he was selected as a “SuperLawyer” in the area of professional liability by Law & Politics Magazine.

Phil is a member of the...

414-287-1430

Contributors

David represents corporate clients in the defense and management of all types of complex commercial and business disputes, including antitrust, insurance coverage, products liability, and toxic tort litigation. David is AV rated, a past-President of the Milwaukee Bar Association, and an active member of both the American Bar Association (“ABA”) and Defense Research Institute (“DRI”).

David has participated in numerous high-profile matters across the globe, including defense of corporate executives in the lysine price-fixing conspiracy. He is mentioned by name...

414-287-1528

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.