Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

State Supreme Court takes on 2 more cases

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//March 4, 2015//

State Supreme Court takes on 2 more cases

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//March 4, 2015//

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to accept two more cases this term.

Hoffer Properties vs. DOT, 2012AP2520, is a case from Jefferson County that could determine under what circumstances the government must compensate a landowner for eliminating that landowner’s right of direct access to a controlled-access highway, according to a news release. The state Department of Transportation regulates the traffic flow on controlled-access highways, which are designed for high-speed traffic.

Hoffer concerns a state construction project on Highway 19 in which the state Department of Transportation took 0.72 acres from Hoffer Properties LLC. As a result, Hoffer’s direct driveway access to Highway 19 was replaced by an extension of a public road. Hoffer brought the matter to trial court, but lost, then made an unsuccessful appeal.

Hoffer argued it was denied reasonable access to Highway 19 when WisDOT cut off its direct access to the highway and that a jury should have determined whether the alternative access was reasonable. WisDOT contended that it provided alternate access and therefore, by law, Hoffer could not ask for compensation.

The court also accepted Kenneth (and Linda) Burgraff, Sr. vs. Menard Inc., 2013AP907, an insurance case out of Eau Claire County arising from a forklift accident at a Menard’s store in which a Menard’s employee, Kenneth Burgraff, was hurt while loading materials into his trailer.

Burgraff sued Menard’s for negligence, according to the news release. Millers First Insurance Co. provided defense for Menard’s and conceded that Menard’s was entitled to coverage under Burgraff’s policy.

In trial court, the parties disagreed on which insurance policy was primary. Menard had liability coverage through CNA Financial Corp., an insurance provider.

Another question was whether Millers had done its duty to provide a defense. In mediation, Millers First and Burgraff settled Millers First’s 1/6 portion of Burgraff’s claim for $40,000, according to the release. Menard’s did not reach any settlement for its portion of any liability it had. The trial court determined that by settling, Millers had done its duty to provide a defense.

Menard’s appealed and lost in part, according to the release. The Court of Appeals agreed that Millers had to provide defense for Menard until it paid its limit of liability. But it disagreed that Menard’s coverage was in excess.

Both cases will be argued in front of the Supreme Court this spring. According to a news release, the justices denied review of 57 other cases.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests