2010AP2640 Geiger v. Hanneman, et al.

Listen to this article

Contracts
Statute of limitations

Gerard and Kelly Geiger appeal a summary judgment dismissing their negligence claim against Coleman Engineering Company and awarding Coleman attorney fees and litigation expenses. The circuit court concluded the Geigers’ suit was untimely because they did not make their claim within the time period required by their contract with Coleman. The Geigers argue the circuit court erred because the contract was ambiguous, and, in any event, Coleman did not provide sufficient evidentiary support for its motion for summary judgment. The Geigers also contend the circuit court erred by awarding attorney fees and litigation expenses pursuant to the contract. In response, Coleman argues we lack jurisdiction because the Geigers did not timely initiate this appeal.

As a threshold matter, we reject Coleman’s assertion that we lack jurisdiction over the Geigers’ appeal. We next conclude that the Geigers’ contract with Coleman unambiguously required them to make their claim within one year after they reasonably knew or should have known of the claim’s existence. However, we agree with the Geigers that Coleman failed to provide sufficient evidentiary support for its summary judgment motion. We therefore reverse the summary judgment dismissing the Geigers’ claim. Because we reverse the summary judgment, we need not address the issue of Coleman’s attorney fees and litigation expenses. This opinion will not be published.

2010AP2640 Geiger v. Hanneman, et al.

Dist III, Iron County, Mangerson, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Snyder, Daniel F., Park Falls; For Respondent: Simon, Dennis L., Appleton

Full Text