By: Derek Hawkins//June 27, 2018//
WI Supreme Court
Case Name: Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co., Inc.
Case No.: 2018 WI 60
Focus: Statutory Interpretation – Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law
This case is before the court on a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Winebow, Inc. v. Capitol-Husting Co., Inc., 867 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2017); see Wis. Stat. § 821.01 (2015-16). It certified the following question: “Does the definition of a dealership contained in Wis. Stat. § 135.02(3)(b) include wine grantor-dealer relationships?” Winebow, 867 F.3d at 871.
Our answer to this certified question will aid the Seventh Circuit in determining whether Winebow, Inc.’s (Winebow) attempt to end its business relationship with two wine distributors is governed by the unilateral termination limitations of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL). See Wis. Stat. § 135.03. Winebow unilaterally terminated its relationship with Capitol-Husting Co., Inc. and L’Eft Bank Wine Co. Limited (the Distributors) after becoming dissatisfied. It argues that the action was permissible because the parties’ business relationship is not an “intoxicating liquor” dealership entitled to the protections of the WFDL. See §§ 135.02(3)(b), 135.066. On the other hand, the Distributors contend that a wine grant or dealer relationship is a “dealership” entitled to such protections and thus Winebow cannot unilaterally terminate its relationship with the Distributors absent a showing of good cause.
We conclude that a wine grantor-dealer relationship is not included within the definition of a dealership in Wis. Stat. § 135.02(3)(b). Section 135.066(2) provides the operative definition of “intoxicating liquor” for purposes of ch. 135, and such definition explicitly excludes wine. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative.
Negative and Remanded
Concur:
Dissent: BRADLEY, R. G., J. joined by ABRAHAMSON, J. and KELLY, J. dissent (Opinion filed).