Those who have the terrible misfortune of being injured in a car wreck involving a drunk driver or a hit and run driver, often find themselves having to navigate the criminal justice system as well as the civil justice system. Since the former almost always takes place before the latter, accident victims face potential pitfalls by giving an early statement to the at-fault insurance company.

Any attorney will tell an accident victim not to speak with the at-fault insurance company after an accident for a myriad of reasons. These reasons include:
1. The conversation will be recorded.
2. It is always very soon after the crash before any investigation is complete or the victim has seen the crash report.
3. The victim does not yet know the full extent of their injuries or prognosis.
4. The victim does not have a lawyer present to assist them.
All these reasons also apply to a criminal court proceeding that may follow an accident.

Last spring, Wisconsin voters passed an amendment to Wisconsin’s constitution expanding crime victims’ rights, commonly referred to as “Marsy’s Law.” While the amendment included numerous provisions, one provision included the right “to be heard in any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated, including release, plea, sentencing, disposition, parole, revocation, expungement, or pardon.”

This amendment expanded victim involvement and statements to earlier phases of the criminal proceeding. Judges are specifically asking at early stage hearings, such as bond hearings or initial appearances, if there are any victims present who want to provide statements. These hearings take place soon after the accident and often before the victim has retained counsel for the case. The accident victim, justifiably, is angered that they have been injured and want the judge to know. However, the circumstances of these early statements give rise to many of the same concerns that attorneys have with accident victims talking to the at-fault insurance company soon after the accident.

First, the statements are being recorded by the court reporter, and while not under oath, there is an implied solemnity to statements made to the Court. Second, the victim has likely not seen the crash report or does not know the results of the investigation of the crash. Just like a statement to the insurance company a few days after the crash, no one wants to be locked into what happened with incomplete facts. Third, at this early juncture, the victim will have just started to treat for their injuries and will not know the full extent or diagnosis. What is a neck strain at the ER following an x-ray may turn out to be a disc protrusion needing surgery once an MRI is performed a month later.

In a civil accident case, the insurance company will likely learn about any statements the victim has made to the Court, obtain the transcripts, and use them to impeach and discredit. None of this will be because anyone was dishonest; instead, they simply did not yet have the full picture of the crash and injuries. Just as a recorded statement taken mere days after the crash can be a goldmine for the insurance company, a court transcript recorded mere days after the crash can provide the same.

Importantly, this is not a suggestion that accident and crime victims avoid invoking their right to be heard at criminal proceedings. Rather, this is another illustration of why it is important to get counsel involved soon after a crash so they can help navigate both the civil and criminal justice system and make sure justice is obtained in both. 

 

There is an elephantine book with 995 chapters that most Wisconsinites know exists, but no one has ever read cover-to-cover. The topics in this book are eclectic and cover a staggering range of subjects from “wild animals and plants” to “communicable diseases” to “prison labor” to “gambling.” It is not the Bible and it is not a thesaurus, nonetheless it is the authority on all aspects of our daily lives.

Open the book to a random chapter and behold the magnitude of its content. For example, Chapter 882 tells us that “An adult may be adopted by any other adult, who is a resident of this state.” Considering opening a bawdyhouse? Think again! Chapter 823 calls such establishments a nuisance and allows for taking of “furniture” and “musical instruments” used in such a business. Looking for some entertainment on October 10th, Chapter 995 informs us that “appropriate exercises and celebrations may be held” in honor of William D. Hoard’s birthday. For those not in the know, William Hoard was the 16th Governor of Wisconsin and is the namesake of Hoard’s Dairyman, a magazine.

Curiosities abound in this book. It blesses marriages between first cousins “where the female has attained the age of 55 years or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit signed by a physician stating that either party is permanently sterile.”

Want to know the difference between a “pet bird” and a “wild bird?” It is in the book. Chapter 169 defines a “pet bird” to mean a “bird that is either a psittacine or a soft bill and that is not native” as opposed to a “wild bird” which is “a wild animal that is a bird.” There is also practical guidance such as in Chapter 29, the prohibition against capturing or killing “any wild animal with the aid of any explosive or poison gas.”

The book is also practical where it gives guidance to employers including that an “employer shall, at the time of hiring, notify each employee about any hairstyle, facial hair or clothing requirement.” To this point, it even threatens a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $30 to an employer “in any manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishment” who fails to “provide suitable seats for its employees.”  And, if there were any doubt about where a municipal judge should hold court, it is removed by Chapter 755, which states: “No judge may keep his or her office or hold court in any tavern, or in any room in which intoxicating liquors are sold, or in any room connecting with a tavern or room in which intoxicating liquors are sold.”

These archaic rules laid down in this massive tome may come as surprise. However, this book is free, routinely updated and available for study. Every citizen of Wisconsin has imputed knowledge of all 995 chapters of this book. Ignorance of the rules of the book won’t save a person that runs afoul of any command of the book. Ignorantia juris non excusat—ignorance of the law does not excuse. This book, of course, is our beloved Wisconsin Statutes. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes.

 

Mediation is a private process for resolving disputes by which an independent mediator assists the parties in reaching a mutually satisfactory settlement. While the courts can require that some cases go to mediation, the process remains voluntary in that the parties are not required to come to an agreement.

Issues That are Typically Mediated

When a lawsuit is filed, it is common for courts to require the parties to engage in some form of informal dispute resolution to attempt to settle their case. The types of cases that are typically mediated include disputes involving personal injuries, business transactions, real estate, insurance, construction, breach of contract, as well as family law and custody disputes, to name a few. It should be noted that a case does not have to be in the court system or in litigation for mediation to be utilized or to be effective. Informal disputes between businesses, neighbors, or among people within a workplace could also benefit from voluntary mediation even without being in a lawsuit.

The Role of the Mediator

Mediators are typically attorneys and retired judges. The mediator will not decide the outcome of the case. The mediator is neutral, impartial and does not choose one side’s position over the other. The mediator’s job is to help the parties resolve their issues through a process that encourages each side to air their dispute, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and to address potential solutions to the problem that will be satisfactory to all sides. The primary goal of a mediation is for all parties to work out a solution they can live with. Nothing will be decided unless both parties agree to it. The mediator will assess the case, highlight the strengths and challenges of each side, point out the risk and expense associated with continuing with the dispute and having a trial, and the uncertainty of leaving it in the hands of a judge or a jury to decide the parties’ fate.

Typical Mediation Procedure

There are different methods for how mediations are conducted. Mediations often take place at a mediator’s office or at the office of one of the attorneys involved in the dispute. Many mediations that take place in the context of a lawsuit are conducted with the parties in separate rooms for the entire mediation. Each side presents a statement to the mediator about the dispute and how they would like it resolved. It is typical for the parties and their attorney to file written submissions to the mediator at least a week in advance of the mediation so that the mediator will be familiar with the issues involved in the dispute. The mediator will then go from one room to the other to discuss potential avenues for resolution with each party with the goal of reaching an agreement. The discussions the mediator has with each side in separate rooms are completely confidential and are not disclosed to the other side. If an agreement is reached, it will then be reduced to a written document that can be enforced in court. Mediations can last a few hours to a full day, or even longer, depending on the complexity of the issues and the number of parties involved.

Other styles of mediation involve the parties having a joint session where they are all in the same room for the entire mediation and the parties discuss potential ways to settle their issues with the mediator facilitating that discussion.

The Benefits of Mediation

Mediation has many benefits when compared to a dispute that works its way through the court system and all the way through a trial. These benefits include the following: (1) Everything said by the parties at mediation is confidential and is not admissible in court; (2) The parties can resolve their dispute privately without having to testify in open court; (3) The parties can avoid the costs of ongoing litigation expense and trial; (4) The parties have total control over the outcome of their own dispute, without having to take the risk of presenting their issues to a judge or jury who will ultimately decide the parties’ fate; and (5) Mediation can be conducted even before a lawsuit is filed, which can significantly shorten the timeframe in which the parties can resolve their dispute.

Attorney Richard H. Fuller at Anderson O’Brien not only represents parties at mediations, but he also conducts mediations as part of his civil litigation practice. If you have any questions about mediations, please do not hesitate to contact him.

 

The recent media attention to pop star, Britney Spears’ conservatorship has painted a dismal picture of arrangements whereby a court-appointed individual has authority to control various aspects of another individual’s finances and personal decisions. Public opinion has been harshly critical of the long-running conservatorship, fueled by Spears’ claims that her conservators are not just overstepping their authority, but that they are abusive and exploitive.

Spears’ pleas to end her conservatorship have caught the attention of not only her fans and the Hollywood elite, but of legal and mental health professionals who are interested in legislative reform to conservatorship arrangements. Conservatorships (called “guardianships” in Wisconsin) are meant to protect vulnerable individuals by placing their decision-making rights in someone else’s hands. If the decision-making authority is in the hands of someone who is abusive or exploitive, an individual under conservatorship is particularly unable to defend themselves given their incapacities. This is where court oversight becomes a necessity.

Importantly, as with most areas of the law, the legal rules differ from state to state. In Wisconsin, there are two arrangements whereby a court-appointed individual controls another person’s finances or their personal/health care. The first arrangement is called “guardianship,” which is an involuntary appointment of a responsible person (called the guardian) for someone who the court has determined cannot care for himself or herself, or who cannot manage his or her own finances (called the ward). The court can appoint a guardian of estate (finances) or a guardian of person, or both. The second arrangement, called “conservatorship” is a voluntary arrangement whereby an individual (called the conservatee) asks the court to appoint a conservator to handle their finances. The voluntary conservatorship can be terminated by the conservatee at any time upon request. In many states, including California where the Spears case is being addressed, a conservatorship is an involuntary procedure.

Guardianship and conservatorships are often used for people who have severe cognitive impairment that renders them substantially incapable of receiving and evaluating information necessary to make appropriate financial, personal and health care decisions. The impairment may be the result of conditions such as dementia, developmental disabilities, mental illness or brain injuries, for instance.

In Wisconsin, guardianship is considered an extreme step used as a last resort and when there are no other less restrictive options. A ward has the right to their own attorney, the right to present medical evidence that their incapacities are not sufficient to require guardianship, and a say in who becomes their guardian. In addition, the court is required to appoint an independent attorney, called a Guardian ad Litem, whose role is to evaluate whether guardianship is in the proposed ward’s best interests.

Wisconsin’s guardianship laws have already been reformed to provide that a ward’s rights are only removed if absolutely necessary. A ward should retain the right to make all decisions he or she is capable of making with appropriate supports in place. The authority of a guardian in Wisconsin only extends to those areas of functioning that a person cannot manage on their own (or on their own with support). It is not intended to be used to protect someone from making “bad” decisions. The court is required to evaluate whether a ward should lose their right to take part in all areas of decision making, or whether the ward should retain rights in certain areas.

Ending a guardianship can be difficult if the ward cannot demonstrate by medical or other evidence that the condition resulting in their incapacity has improved, or that other supports have allowed appropriate functioning to resume, but the law is clear that a ward may request (petition) to end their guardianship. Further, if the law is intended to be less restrictive to the individual, it stands to reason that the conservatorship should be terminated if the individual no longer meets the standards.

In Spears’ case, it is impossible to speculate whether the conservatorship should be terminated without knowing all the facts. Persons under guardianships and conservatorships often have improved functioning in many personal and financial aspects of their lives simply because they are benefiting from assisted decision making, medication management and are free from outside exploitation. Under appropriate review and oversight, the conservatorship or guardianship should nonetheless be terminated if the standard for incapacity is no longer met. This can be a hard pill to swallow for concerned family members who believe – often correctly – that once assisted decision making is over, the dysfunctional behavior will resume.

Either way, it is important to remember that although the case of a famous pop star might bring about legislative reform, when handled properly, conservatorships and guardianships play an important role in protecting elderly, disabled and mentally ill adults from abuse, exploitation and the harm that could result from the inability to make effective decisions. If you are concerned about a loved one with impaired decision making, it is important to talk to an attorney who specializes in guardianship and conservator arrangements regarding appropriate options.

 

If you are injured in an automobile accident, you may be wondering who will pay for accident-related care and treatment. Prior to a settlement or jury verdict, it is unlikely that the responsible party will pay for care and treatment. Therefore, you will likely turn to your health insurer for payment.

If you do not have health insurance through an employer plan, private plan or government plan, the prospect of unpaid medical bills may be daunting. Therefore, it is important to consult your own automobile policy declarations to determine if you have coverage for accident-related medical expenses.

Although not every policy has medical expense coverage, many policies have a small amount of coverage ranging from $1,000 to $10,000. Some auto insurers offer higher amounts, even up to $100,000. While this may seem like a lot of coverage, the cost of significantly increasing the amount of medical expense coverage on your automobile policy may be minimal. Therefore, it is highly recommended that you consult with your automobile insurance agent to discuss options for increasing your medical expense coverage.

This is true even if you have health insurance through your employer. Employer-sponsored health plans may have high deductibles that could leave you with significant responsibility for medical expenses until met. Having medical expense coverage under your automobile policy may assist in covering these expenses. Moreover, under federal law, some employer-sponsored health plans may claim a first right of recovery from any settlement.

Medical expenses paid under an automobile policy, however, are likely subject to a doctrine known as made-whole. The made-whole doctrine provides that the auto insurer making medical payments is not entitled to be reimbursed for medical expenses paid until you are made whole for injuries and damages sustained.

After you receive a settlement from the responsible party’s insurer, it is often possible to negotiate a reduction in the amount of medical expenses to be reimbursed to the insurer paying under the medical expense coverage of an automobile policy to avoid a dispute as to whether the settlement has made you whole.

If you are involved in an automobile accident, you should always remember to check your own automobile policy to access any benefits you may have for medical expense coverage. It is equally important to be proactive by considering increasing your medical expense coverage now before you are the unfortunate victim of a serious automobile accident.

 

Indemnification provisions provide an important tool to parties seeking to allocate the risk of third-party damages and liabilities when contracting. When reviewing a contract, most people understandably first consider things like deadlines, pricing information, and the description of the assets to be transferred or the services to be performed. While these things are of course important, a well drafted contract can do much more. Frequently overlooked as “boiler plate” language, the exact structure and wording of an indemnification clause can become vitally important to protect your interests and limit the impact of creditor claims for actions you had little control over or means to prevent. These clauses should be fully understood and carefully considered before signing an agreement. Some contracts may not use the word “indemnification,” rather phrases like “hold harmless” or agreements to “defend” the other party and are a red flag that something like an indemnification clause may be at play. For such reasons you should always look beyond the heading of a section when interpreting the text at issue.

The assignment of responsibilities for liabilities is often a large part of agreements for commercial transactions. While the parties to a contract have broad discretion to transfer property, obligations and liability between themselves, they are limited in their ability to dictate that third parties – who have not joined into the contract – respect the terms of an agreement they had no say in. This conforms to the broader legal principle that “no one gives what they do not have.” For the same reason you cannot contract to sell something that belongs to another without their consent, you cannot contract to limit the rights of others to make claims they are otherwise entitled to make. Because the allocation of liability for certain causes of action is such an important part of many contractual matters, parties sometimes instead use indemnification provisions to essentially refund, or “indemnify,” the other party if they suffer damages resulting from certain types of issues.

To illustrate this principle, consider the following situation. A business owner rents a storefront from a landlord and agrees in the lease that they can only sue the landlord under certain circumstances. The business owner accepts certain risks or faults with the property they are renting.  For this example, assume the landlord discloses the radiator is not up to code and could cause a burn, so the tenant will take on the responsibility to get it fixed and agrees not to sue the landlord if they get burned by it before it is fixed. On its face, this arrangement seems a valid contractual exchange – the landlord gives up the right to use the property for a set time in exchange for: (1) rent and (2) the tenant’s agreement to limit suit against them from injuries over certain disclosed problems and (3) the agreement by tenant to fix the radiator.

In contrast, the landlord cannot effectively include a provision saying that “none of your customers can sue me if they are injured on the property, because you are responsible for keeping it in good and safe condition.” Despite the landlord shifting responsibility to keep the property in good condition to the tenant, they cannot prohibit third parties from making claims against the landlord if they are injured on the property. If the business owner fails to have the radiator replaced and a customer burns themselves while shopping, the burned customer would be fully within their rights to sue the landlord, despite the landlord’s arrangement with the tenant to fix the issue.

To better protect themselves, the landlord should have included an indemnification provision. Since the parties cannot limit who third parties claim damages from, they instead say “If I am forced to pay a certain type of claim, you agree to pay me back.” Here, the lease could apply indemnification to liabilities arising from the tenant’s negligent maintenance or actions with respect to the rented space, perhaps with specific reference to damages from the radiator if they fail to replace it. If the injured customer sues the landlord, the landlord would pay the claim and then seek to enforce the indemnification provision to recover the costs from their tenant who had agreed to indemnify them under these circumstances.

Far from being the “standard provision” they are often dismissed for, indemnification provisions can vary widely in scope, application and duration. Depending on the bargaining power of the parties, all such points may be negotiated.

The scope of an indemnity governs what circumstances are covered under it. A common scope provision might provide damages fall under the indemnity if they are a result of a breach of the agreement, inaccuracy of any representations or warranties made by the indemnifying party. Before agreeing to indemnify another party, consider what type of actions would fall under the described scope, whether any ambiguities exist regarding the scope of coverage and whether you have any control over preventing or reducing the risk of those types of claims. Ideally, you should not be agreeing to indemnify a party for liability resulting from the actions, errors, or omissions of their own or of a third party you have no control over. Wisconsin law permits broad indemnification clauses, but Wisconsin courts tend to strictly construe them, meaning they will not generally stretch the interpretation of the clause to bring an ambiguous situation under the indemnity. Wisconsin also has special rules for the scope of indemnification in construction contracts.

The application of an indemnity relates to how an indemnity will mechanically be triggered, calculated, and resolved. This includes important provisions on the required notices and timelines associated with various aspects of the indemnification procedure. A party seeking to rely on the clause should carefully comply with these technical requirements as the party obligated to pay under it will likely be looking for ways to get out of it if it is triggered. The provision may also place limits on the amounts required to be paid under the clause, or require certain steps are taken to ensure damages are mitigated or funds are available to comply with the indemnification requirements. The parties may require each other to carry insurance policies designed to cover these costs during the term of the indemnity to ensure it is effective. This is important because an indemnification right against a party with no collectible assets does not offer much protection. In the example used earlier of the landlord and tenant, the landlord’s indemnity will not be useful if the tenant has no assets from which to recover or if all of the assets are separated from the limited liability entity which granted the indemnity and thus very difficult to reach.

The duration of the indemnity governs how long the agreement to provide indemnity lasts. Contracts for purchase and sale transactions often have the bulk of the agreement terms end following the transfer of goods and payment, but indemnification provisions are often among the terms separated out and assigned a longer period of “survival.” These terms usually are tied to the statute of limitations for the claims they are being applied against but may still vary.

If you have questions on how an indemnification clause in a contract you are considering will operate, you should speak to a business law attorney to help you review, understand and potentially negotiate alterations to the agreement.