Court Error – Damages

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: Jeffrey A. Riggert v. John H. Reed

Case No.: 2017AP2369

Officials: Lundsten, P.J., Kloppenburg and Fitzpatrick, JJ.

Focus: Court Error – Damages

This case returns to us following remand and arises from claims brought by Jeffrey Riggert under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against John Reed. The dispute stems from Riggert’s employment at Innovologie, LLC, a company solely owned and managed by Reed. Prior to our first opinion in this case, the circuit court allowed Riggert to amend his first amended complaint to include a claim for denial of benefits under ERISA, granted summary judgment in favor of Riggert on the denial of benefits claim, and determined that Reed was individually liable for $84,494.83 in damages as well as $57,626.11 in attorney fees and expenses. Reed appealed, challenging the court’s decision to allow the amendment and the court’s grant of summary judgment against him on the denial of benefits claim. Riggert cross-appealed, arguing that the court erred by selecting an incorrect method of calculating damages and by failing to award Riggert the full amount of his request for attorney fees.

In our first opinion, we addressed only the first issue raised by Reed, which was whether the circuit court erred by allowing Riggert to amend the first amended complaint to include a claim for denial of benefits. Riggert v. Reed (Riggert I), No. 2017AP2369, unpublished slip op., ¶3 (Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2018). We concluded that the court applied the incorrect legal standard, and we remanded for the court to exercise its discretion under the standard that applies to motions to amend that are filed after summary judgment has been granted. Id. That standard is set out in Mach v. Allison, 2003 WI App 11, 259 Wis. 2d 686, 656 N.W.2d 766 (2002). We did not, at that time, reach the other issues raised by the parties, but we retained jurisdiction over the appeal and cross-appeal. Riggert I, No. 2017AP2369, ¶3.

On remand, the circuit court ruled that the amendment was properly permitted under the Mach standard. The parties have now filed supplemental appellate briefs addressing whether the court’s amendment ruling was correct. In this opinion we address the following issues raised by Reed’s appeal and Riggert’s cross-appeal: (1) whether the circuit court on remand erred by permitting Riggert to amend the first amended complaint to include a claim for denial of benefits; (2) whether the court erred by granting summary judgment against Reed on the denial of benefits claim; (3) whether the court selected an incorrect method of calculating damages; and (4) whether the court erred by failing to award Riggert the full amount of his request for attorney fees.

As we explain in the sections that follow, we conclude that the circuit court did not err as to any of these issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.