Western Wisconsin Personal Injury and Car Accident Blog (Eau Claire, WI, Menomonie, Hudson, WI, River Falls, WI, New Richmond, WI)

Double Recovery in a Personal Injury Claim?

nicoletlawadmin — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:02:38 +0000

When an insured person is injured in a car accident, he or
she is often compensated by his or her insurance company. The person’s
insurance company will later seek reimbursement for the money it paid its
insured, seeking payment from the person(s) who injured its insured, this is
known as subrogation. Subrogation can be confusing, especially so when a
person’s insurance company is not successful in its attempted subrogation. A
Wisconsin Supreme Court case from the Spring of 2011 examined this issue when
an insured couple faced the unique prospect of being paid twice for their
medical expenses.

Roger and Sandra Fischer were injured in an automobile
accident, when Pamela Steffen suffered a seizure and caused a collision. After accruing
$12, 157.14 in medical expenses associated with the collision, the Fischers
were given $10,000 to reimburse them for a portion of their medical expenses by
their insurance company, American Family.

As is common, in scenarios such as this, American Family
acquired a subrogation claim meaning that American Family would have the right
to attempt to recover the $10,000 from Steffen and/or her insurer, Wilson
Mutual Insurance Co. However, when American Family attempted to recoup the
$10,000 from Wilson Mutual via arbitration they were denied recovery. Recovery
was denied to American Family because the arbitrator determined that Steffen
was not casually negligent due to the fact that her seizure was sudden and
unexpected.

Thereafter, American Family was effectively removed from the
legal process, as the Fischers continued a lawsuit against Steffen and Wilson
Mutual. A jury found Steffen negligent and awarded the Fischers $21,000.00 for
pain and suffering and loss of consortium and $12,157.14 for their medical
expenses. Steffan did not agree with the amount awarded for medical expenses.

Steffan petitioned the court, asking for the $12,157.14
awarded to the Fischers for medical expenses to be reduced by $10,000.00
because of the $10,000.00 already paid to the Fischers by their insurance
company, American Family. Steffan argued that the Fischers would be obtaining a
“double recovery” if she were forced to pay the full award. The Fischers argued,
among other things, that Steffan and Wilson Mutual would be getting away
without paying for the damages that she caused. The court examined the
interplay of several legal doctrines, including, the collateral source rule,
subrogation, and the made whole doctrine and decided against the Fischers, agreeing
with Steffan that in this scenario, the jury award should be reduced by
$10,000.00.

If you are injured in an automobile accident, the legal
process after the accident can almost be as confusing and frightening as the
accident itself. Contact the dedicated legal professionals at Nicolet Law Office, S.C. today to help guide you forward..

Written by: Russell D. Nicolet

*please note that this is general information only and not intended to be legal advice. If you have questions or need legal advice please setup an appointment with our attorney, or an attorney of your choosing.

Russell is an attorney with Nicolet Law Office, S.C. Russell represents injured clients in Hudson, New Richmond, River Falls, Prescott, Ellsworth, Roberts, Osceola, St. Croix Falls, Menomonie, Eau Claire, Chippewa Falls and surrounding areas of Wisconsin.

Nicolet Law Office, S.C. has offices in Eau Claire, WI, Hudson, WI and Woodbury, MN and handles car accidents and other personal injury claims. For more information call 715-377-2141 or 715-835-5959 or visit www.nicoletlaw.com or www.eauclaireinjurylaw.com

Vehicle Crash Involving Intoxicated Driver in Chippewa County

nicoletlawadmin — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 05:29:51 +0000

According to WEAU, three people were injured yesterday in the Chippewa County town of Wheaton when an intoxicated driver side swiped a vehicle when attempting to
pass it. The failed passing attempt caused the intoxicated driver to roll his
or her vehicle. Two of the intoxicated driver’s passengers were injured, while
one of the other vehicle’s passengers was injured. The crash is still under
investigation.

Fatal Car Accident In Eau Claire County

nicoletlawadmin — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 05:27:07 +0000

From WEAU, on Wednesday, November 16, 2011, a fatal accident occurred in the town of Seymour, in Eau Claire County. A truck driven by a Chippewa Falls resident struck a deer whiletraveling Westbound on Olson Drive. The collision caused the truck to enter theopposing traffic lane, resulting in a crash with an oncoming SUV. The driver of
the SUV died from resulting injuries.

Sponorship Liability Regarding Motor Vehicle Accidents in Wisconsin

nicoletlawadmin — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:17:00 +0000

If you have a child, chances are you have already or will in the future sign your child’s driver’s license application as a sponsor. Wis. Stat. §343.15 mandates that any person under the age of 18 (with a few exceptions such as those with no living parent) who wishes to apply for a driver’s license must have a sponsor. By sponsoring a driver’s license, a sponsor agrees to be held jointly and severally liable for damages caused by negligent or willful misconduct of the sponsored driver. In most cases if your child is added to your insurance policy, you may have less to worry about (from a financial standpoint). However, if your child has their own car and insurance policy, you may want to review both of the policies.

In a recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals case, Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. David Jacobson 2011 WI APP 140, a minor (Jacobson) who owned his own car and carried his own insurance was driving his vehicle when he lost control of the car and crashed, killing two passengers. Because of her sponsorship Jacobson’s mother (Link) faced liability from the estates of the two deceased passengers. Link’s insurance company (Progressive) commenced an action seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend and indemnify Link for her sponsorship Liability. Progressive pointed to an exclusion in Link’s insurance policy which would not cover damage associated with a relative’s vehicle unless liability arose from Link’s maintenance or use of the vehicle.

The estates tried to argue that Link’s sponsorship of Jacobson’s driver’s license would constitute a “use” of the vehicle sufficient to force Progressive to provide coverage. Although Wisconsin courts have ruled that for insurance purposes “use” does not always involve the direct, physical operation of the vehicle, the concept of use through sponsorship was not enough to force Progressive to provide coverage.

Written by: Russell D. Nicolet

Deadly Car Accident in Clark County Wisconsin

nicoletlawadmin — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 03:37:59 +0000

From the WEAU-

Deputies are investigating a traffic crash that left two people dead.

It happened around 2:30 p.m. Thursday at the intersection of 26th road and Pelsdorf Avenue near Loyal.

The Clark County Sheriff’s Department says one of the two vehicles involved was going north on Pelsdorf.

Investigators say that driver appears to have disregarded a sign, and caused the crash with the other vehicle, which had been heading west on 26th.

Both drivers were thrown from their vehicles and pronounced dead at the scene. Their names haven’t been released.

Two children went to the hospital. There’s no word on their condition.

What is Subrogation?

nicoletlawadmin — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:19:20 +0000

If you are involved in a car accident you may eventually encounter what is known as subrogation. Subrogation refers to an insurance company’s right to be repaid for claims on which it has made a payment. If an insured sustains a loss and the insurance company pays on a subsequent claim, the insurance company could become a subrogated party. A subrogated party may initiate a lawsuit on their own or join into a lawsuit initiated by someone else. How subrogation affects you depends on whether the accident was your fault or another party’s fault.

For example, say you were in a car accident that was not your fault and your car sustained damage which cost $1,000 to repair. If you have insurance and your insurance company pays for your auto repair, they may be subrogated to your claim. This means that if you sue the party that was responsible for the accident, your insurance company may join (or you may need to include them as a party) the lawsuit and try to recover the $1,000 it spent to have your car repaired. If you did not sustain an injury or any monetary loss which was not reimbursed by your insurance and decide not to sue the party that was responsible for the accident, your insurance company would maintain the right to sue the other party for the amount of money it had paid to you or to others on your behalf.

Conversely, if you are in a car accident that was in your fault you may face a subrogated insurance company. Again, the insurance company would be looking to recoup the money that they have spent to satisfy a claim, but in this case they would be looking to you for their reimbursement.

Written by: Russell D. Nicolet

What is Personal Injury?

nicoletlawadmin — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:02:16 +0000

The term, “personal injury” is often used, but what exactly does it mean? “Personal Injury” is a blanket term for cases and legal actions relating to harm suffered by one or more individuals. Lawsuits stemming from bodily harm sustained by car accidents, slip and falls, dog bites, defective products, or other incidents
involving a lack of due care would all be considered personal injury cases.

In a personal injury case an attorney can help you determine what you and your
family’s damages are. Basically, damages are the losses which you have incurred
because of your injury. These losses can include damage to property, medical
expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and more. In some cases your family
may also be eligible for damages such as loss of services and loss of consortium

After coming up with an approximate dollar amount for your damages, your attorney will contact the person or persons who injured you (or their attorneys), as well as any insurance companies (or their attorneys) which cover them. This contact is important for two reasons. First, your attorney will inform these other parties that you are represented by an attorney. Secondly, your attorney will may initiate negotiations with the other side, and try to “settle” your case. If a case is “settled” it means that compromise was reached and you should receive a fair payout without going to trial. Your attorney will work to settle your case with these other parties before actually filing a lawsuit. Sometimes, comprise can be reached at this point and no further action is needed.

If a settlement cannot be agreed upon by your attorney and the other side, your attorney will file a summons and complaint with the court and the other parties, naming the other parties as defendants and initiating a lawsuit against them. A lawsuit can be a complicated process; once filed, your attorney will continue the work he or she started in the settlement phase by further interviewing witnesses and experts, collecting documents and records held by the other side, conducting depositions, and performing many other tasks on your behalf.

At this point a deal can sometimes still be worked out between your attorney and the
other side. If not, a trial will eventually be held. You and your attorney will have decided if you want to have a “bench trial” in which a judge renders the decision or a “jury trial” in which your case is presented to a jury which renders the decision. Unless there is an appeal, the judge or jury’s decision is one of the last steps in a lawsuit.

Contact an Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorney today to explore your options and to help determine what you are entitled to.

Written by: Russell D. Nicolet

Russell is a wisconsin personal injury attorney with Nicolet Law Office, S.C. Russell represents injured clients in Hudson, New Richmond, River Falls, Prescott, Ellsworth, Roberts, Osceola, St. Croix Falls, Menomonie, Eau Claire, Chippewa Falls and surrounding areas of Wisconsin.

Uninsured Motorist Insurance

nicoletlawadmin — Tue, 24 May 2011 02:57:14 +0000

When a person is injured in an accident involving an automobile it is standard practice for the injured person to make a claim against the driver who injured them as well as that driver’s insurance company. Including the insurance companies is important because individual drivers do not usually have sufficient assets to reimburse the people they injure. But what happens if the driver does not have insurance?

If a driver does not have insurance an injured person may face the dilemma of suing a driver and not even getting enough compensation to cover their medical expenses. If you have an automotive insurance policy in the State of Wisconsin, you most likely have something known as uninsured motorist coverage. Wis. Stat. §632.32 regulates certain insurance provisions and among other things, provides for uninsured motorist coverage in insurance policies. Basically, uninsured motorist coverage means that if you are injured by a driver who does not have insurance, your insurance company will pay you an amount of money to help make up for the driver’s lack of insurance.

You may have heard that dueto recent legislation the amount of money you might be entitled to through uninsured motorist insurance may have been reduced. Depending on the date of the accident, this may be true. Nonetheless, the principal of coverage and the safety net provided by it remain. Uninsured motorist insurance coupled with a knowledgeable attorney on your side could make the difference for you.

Uninsured motorist insurance may be a very powerful tool for you if you have been injured by a motorist without insurance. Contact an attorney today to explore your options and to help determine what you are entitled to.

Written by: Russell D. Nicolet

Dog Bites in Wisconsin

nicoletlawadmin — Tue, 10 May 2011 03:19:58 +0000

The fact that the owner of a dog is generally responsible for any injuries caused by that dog is usually fairly straightforward. However, as evidenced by Pawlowski v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WI 105 (Wis. 2009) sometimes just determining who should be considered the owner of the dog can become quite complicated.

In Pawlowski, a woman named Nancy Seefeldt allowed a family friend, Walter Waterman, and his dogs to move into her home. Several months after Waterman moved into the home his dogs attacked a passerby. As Colleen Pawlowski was walking by the home, Waterman was bringing his dogs outside. The dogs rushed at Pawlowski; one of the animals went so far as to bite and knock her down. Due to the attack Pawlowski sued. However, Pawlowski did not sue Waterman, she sued Seefeldt and Seefeldt’s homeowner’s insurance.

Pawlowski was able to sue Seefeldt because Wisconsin’s statutes define the “owner” of a dog as “any person who owns, harbors, or keeps a dog.” Wis. Stat. 174.001(5) While Waterman may have owned the dogs, Seefeldt became an “owner” of the dogs by harboring them at her home and providing them with shelter.

Pawlowski had the option to sue the legal owner of the dog (Waterman) and/or the statutory owner of the dog (Seefeldt). Thus, even though Waterman was the owner of the dogs and his actions led to the attack, Seefeldt was also liable.
Written by: Russell D. Nicolet

Pay and Walk – Will Your Insurance Company Defend You?

nicoletlawadmin — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:57:24 +0000

Automobile insurance is an important aspect of life which most people do not pay much attention to until they are in a collision. Unfortunately, when a collision occurs some people may find that their insurance coverage is inadequate and that their insurance company will not defend them throughout the litigation which may ensue.

A recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision, Young v. Welytok, 2009AP3015, has reexamined what are known as “pay and walk” provisions which are sometimes found in insurance policies. A “pay and walk” provision is a portion of a policy which states that the insurance company may elect to pay the maximum liability limit of a policy and remove itself from litigation.

In Young v. Welytok, Young was riding a motorcycle and was injured in a collision with the Welytoks’ minor daughter. Young initiated a lawsuit against the Welytoks and their insurance company, American Standard. After considering the cost of a trial, American Standard offered to settle with Young for $100,000 (the maximum liability limit of the Welytoks’ insurance policy). The only problem with American Standard’s offer was that Young was seeking more than $100,000. After American Standard paid Young the $100,000 and sought to remove itself from further litigation the Welytoks cried foul.

In Young v. Welytok, the Appeals Court found that the Welytoks’ insurance policy did indeed include a valid “pay and walk” provision. Further, the provision was bold and capitalized, drawing attention to itself. Because American Standard paid out the policy limit, the Welytoks were on their own in regard to any further litigation and damages.

Written by: Russell D. Nicolet