Civil Procedure — accord and satisfaction

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Civil Procedure — accord and satisfaction

After a fire destroyed its warehouse, Go Wireless, LLC, sued its insurer, Maryland Casualty Company, for breach of contract and reformation. Go Wireless argued that Maryland had agreed to provide $2.5 million in business personal property coverage, but it subsequently asserted coverage was limited to $546,400. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Maryland, concluding that Go Wireless’s acceptance of $546,400 from Maryland constituted an accord and satisfaction. We agree, and we therefore affirm the dismissal of Go Wireless’s claims against Maryland.

Go Wireless also sued its insurance agent, Northern Insurance Associates–Bartels & Brown, LLC, asserting that Northern failed to advise Go Wireless regarding the adequacy of its business personal property coverage. Northern filed a cross-claim against Maryland for contribution or indemnification, contending that Maryland breached a duty to advise Go Wireless about its insurance needs. The circuit court dismissed Northern’s cross-claim, concluding the undisputed facts showed that Go Wireless relied exclusively on Northern for insurance advice and never sought advice from Maryland. We agree and, consequently, affirm the dismissal of Northern’s cross-claim. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2012AP321 Go Wireless LLC v. Maryland Casualty Company, et al.

Dist III, Outagamie County, Metropulos, J., Cane, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Burnett, R. George, Green Bay; Weber, David H., Green Bay; For Respondent: McCoy, John V., Waukesha; Aiken, Michael D., Waukesha