Don’t Get Burned by “Fire” Insurance’s 12-month Statute of Limitation

Don’t Get Burned by “Fire” Insurance’s 12-month Statute of Limitation

If you were trying to get yourself to sleep by perusing the Wisconsin Statutes on Insurance Contracts, you may run across Wis. Stat. § 631.83(1)(a) – statutory periods of limitation on fire insurance.  The section states: “An action on a fire insurance policy must be commenced within 12 months after the inception of the loss.  This rule also applies to riders or endorsements attached to a fire insurance policy covering loss or damage to property or to the use of or income from property from any cause, and to separate windstorm or hail insurance policies.”  This is a sneaky statute that can have huge implications for homeowners and should be known by all.

First, “fire insurance” means a whole lot more than just “fire.”  In fact, Wisconsin courts have said that “fire insurance” is merely a “generic term” that “covers indemnity insurance for losses to property caused by many other perils than fire.”  Villa Clement, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 120 Wis. 2d 140 (Ct. App. 1984).  “Fire insurance” is broad enough to include perils such as fire, lightning, hail, tornado and even theft.  Considering the many possible causes of property damage that have nothing to do with actual fire, it is crucial to know that this 12-month statute of limitation applies “to any suit to recover for loss from any peril covered by the policy.”  Id. at 145-46.

Second, fire insurance’s statutory limitation of 12 months is much shorter than many commonly known statutes of limitation in Wisconsin, such as three years for most negligence actions or six years for most contract disputes.  Also, the limitation is 12 months “after the inception of the loss,” not the discovery of the loss.  Wisconsin courts have ruled that “inception of the loss” unambiguously means the date on which the loss occurs.  It does not matter when the owner-insureds discover the damage.  In other words, it is the date of the storm that is important, not the date you discovered the hail damage.

As such, if you are unable to reach an agreement with your insurance company on your property damage, it is crucial to act fast, getting counsel or filing suit yourself, to avoid having your claim completely time-barred by this sneaky 12‑month cutoff.

 

What is a Supported Decision-Making Agreement?

What is a Supported Decision-Making Agreement?

A supported decision-making agreement is a method of decision-making available to individuals with disability through an arrangement with another trusted person. These agreements give individuals with functional impairments the ability to create a formal arrangement for support that service providers must recognize, while retaining rights and self-direction that might otherwise be lost through guardianship or even by using power of attorney. These agreements are based on three principles: (1) that everyone has the right to make choices, (2) that people can get help making choices without giving up that right, and (3) that people will often need help in understanding, making and communicating their choices.

With supported decision-making agreements, the individual retains their right to make decisions. The individual can make their own decisions and they can identify areas of their life where they would like to have someone support them in their decision making. The supporter would assist the functionally impaired individual in gathering information, comparing the different options, as well as helping the individual communicate their decision to a third party. All the tasks that the supporter can assist with are only used to assist the functionally impaired individual and it does not give the supporter any legal authority over the individual. Therefore, these agreements can be useful in maintaining the impaired individual’s rights and self-direction.

These agreements can be used in combination with other legal arrangements, such as power of attorney and/or guardianship. These documents are not mutually exclusive and in fact can be used to complement each other. A supported decision-making agreement can help cover areas that are not traditionally covered by a power of attorney, such as housing, filing taxes or even choosing a service provider. Additionally, these agreements can be a way to transition an individual to more support when needed, especially in cases where the individual’s impairment gets worse over time.

It is important to note that a supported decision-making agreement is distinctly different from a power of attorney. Firstly, the supporter does not have any authority to make the decision for the individual. The impaired individual still retains their right to make the decision, whether or not the supporter agrees with the decision is irrelevant. Secondly, the supporter does not have the legal authority to sign documents for the impaired individual or bind that individual to a legal agreement. Lastly, the supporter is limited in their role by the specific terms of the agreement as determined by the impaired individual. Therefore, the impaired individual can specifically designate in what areas and to what extent the supporter is allowed to assist with the decision-making process.

In respect to guardianship proceedings, the presence of a supported decision-making agreement is not evidence of incapacity or incompetency. In fact, now during a guardianship proceeding, the judge must consider the use of alternatives to guardianship. These alternatives include whether a supported decision-making agreement has been attempted. Additionally, the judge may consider whether less restrictive means, such as a supported decision-making agreement, could be used in the situation. Therefore, it is important to consider whether a supported decision-making agreement would be a feasible possibility for an impaired individual prior to considering a full guardianship proceeding.

If considering entering into a supported decision-making agreement, it may be a good idea to get your attorney involved. When entering into these types of agreements, it is important to consider what areas you would like support in your decision-making and what kind of support you would want. You need to consider if you would like the supporter to gather information, help you understand your options and/or help you communicate those decisions. Additionally, it will be important to consider the person you would like to designate as your supporter. Who will be able to assist you the most effectively in making decisions in certain areas of your life? Due to all of these considerations that go into the process of drafting a supported decision-making agreement, it is important that an attorney assist you in making sure the agreement represents your wishes and provides you with the needed support you require in making decisions.

 

Five Key Takeaways Following the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Invalidation of the Safer at Home Order

Five Key Takeaways Following the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Invalidation of the Safer at Home Order

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, invalidated Wisconsin’s Safer-at-Home Order, also known as Order #28.  It issued that decision on May 13, 2020. Here are five key takeaways to consider in the wake of that decision:

1.)  As of this writing, Order #28 is no longer enforceable. People in Wisconsin are not required by that Order to stay at home.  Non-essential businesses are not required to remain closed.  There is one exception to the Supreme Court’s decision, however:  The portion of Order #28 that requires closure of public and private K-12 schools remains in effect for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year.

2.)  The Supreme Court’s decision does not affect any other federal or state legislation concerning the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the so-called Families First legislation, the CARES Act, Wisconsin Act 185, or any similar legislation. Those laws remain in effect.

3.)  Wisconsin businesses must continue to be aware of the Wisconsin Safe Place law. That law requires that an employer, or owner of a place that is open to the public must provide a safe place of employment for both employees and visitors and to undertake that which is reasonably necessary to life, health, safety and general welfare of employees and visitors.  OSHA’s general duty clause also remains in effect.  It holds that each employer shall furnish to each employee a place of employment that is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.

4.)  People and businesses may continue to use the concepts found within Order #28 to guide their conduct. However, such guidance is voluntary; it is not mandatory.  Businesses should continue to review the CDC or the Wisconsin DHS website for suggested practices in addressing health concerns relating to COVID-19.

5.)  It is possible that local health authorities may issue rules or orders that affect people or businesses following the invalidation of Order #28. In addition, Governor Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Legislature may collaborate on new rules or legislation to replace Order #28.

Stay apprised of new legal developments in the weeks and months ahead.  Seek legal counsel as necessary.  In the meantime, the attorneys at Anderson O’Brien will continue to monitor the legal developments with you.

 

U.S. Department of Labor and IRS Extend COBRA Deadlines

U.S. Department of Labor and IRS Extend COBRA Deadlines

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Wisconsinites, along with the rest of the nation, have endured sudden and severe job loss.  As of May 14, 2020, the University of Wisconsin Center for Research on the Wisconsin Economy estimated the Wisconsin unemployment rate to be 21.9%.  In addition to the significant financial losses that attend such massive changes in employment status, job loss often results in the loss of health coverage.  Recent data indicates that roughly 57% of Wisconsin’s non-elderly population (i.e., non-Medicare) obtain their health insurance through an employer.

As many are familiar, one of the health insurance options available to those who lose their employment and employer provided health insurance is to apply for COBRA, which allows an employee and his or her dependents to maintain coverage at their own expense by paying the full cost of the premium.  Of course, there are certain deadlines that apply to seeking COBRA coverage.  Normally, a person has 60 days from the date of receipt of the COBRA notice to elect COBRA (election period), and then 45 days after the date of COBRA election to make the initial premium payment (premium payment period).

However, with the sudden and massive job losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, on May 4, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor and the IRS extended these standard COBRA deadlines.  Under the new rule, many COBRA deadlines are extended beyond the “Outbreak Period,” which is defined as March 1, 2020, to 60 days after the end of the National Emergency declaration.  The relief specifically directs all group health plans subject to ERISA or the IRS Code to disregard the period from March 1, 2020, through 60 days after the announced end of the national emergency when determining certain periods and dates, including the election period for COBRA continuation coverage and the date for making COBRA initial premium payments.

These changes are a welcome acknowledgment by these entities that the huge societal upheaval caused by the pandemic has made meeting standard deadlines increasingly difficult.  Feel free to contact one of our employment attorneys with any questions or concerns.  Be well and stay safe.

 

Beware of Dog Owner Liability and Coverage

Beware of Dog Owner Liability and Coverage

“As wonderful as dogs can be, they are famous for missing the point.” – Jean Ferris. Sometimes when dogs miss the point; things can go horribly wrong. Statistically, there are four to five million Americans bitten by dogs every year.  There is precedent for animals standing trial for criminal charges, with the earliest record of an animal trial is the execution of a pig in 1266 at Fontenay-aux-Roses.  However, in recent history, putting the animal on trial for its vicious acts has gone out of vogue. Without the possibility of a kangaroo court – pun intended – it is the owners who face the consequences when a good dog “breaks bad.”  Specifically, Wisconsin has two categories of laws regarding the liability for harm caused by dogs.

The first applies when the dog has no history of causing harm.  In this case, the owner will only be liable for the actual amount of damage caused by the dog.  Included in the amount an owner may owe to the victim are hospital bills, lost wages and money to compensate the victim for pain and suffering.  It is worth noting that under the law, “owner” includes anyone who keeps or harbors a dog. This means that if you are caring for a dog long-term at your residence, you may be liable for damage caused by the dog if you are found to be “harboring or keeping” the dog.

The second category of liability creates enhanced penalties for an owner of a dog who has notice of the dog’s past bad behavior.  To quote the statute, “the owner of a dog is liable for twice the full amount of damages caused by the dog biting a person with sufficient force to break the skin and cause permanent physical scarring or disfigurement if the owner was notified or knew that the dog had previously, without provocation, bitten a person with sufficient force to break the skin and cause permanent physical scarring or disfigurement.”  Luckily, normal puppy bites and teething behavior do not rise to this level. Gasper v. Parbs, 2001 WI App 259, 249 Wis. 2d 106, 637 N.W.2d 399.

In light of the threat that a dog owner may be on the hook for the damage caused by a dog that attacks, what can be done? Aside from obedience training, the most important thing to do is to check your homeowner’s insurance policy.  Many policies have language excluding certain dog breeds from liability coverage. A list of commonly excluded breeds may include any of following: Pit Bull, American Pit Bull, Rottweiler, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bulldog, Colorado Bulldog, Northwood’s Bulldog, English Bull Terrier, Wolf Hybrids, or a mixed breed with any of the aforementioned breeds.  Although this list seems somewhat arbitrary, it is worth checking your policy to determine if you will be covered in the event that your dog bites someone.

 

Take it Easy on the Beers While Riding a Lawn Mower

Take it Easy on the Beers While Riding a Lawn Mower

If you are like me, after mowing the lawn and job well cut, you may enjoy a cold refreshing adult beverage.  With that frosty refreshment in mind, I stumbled upon a recent, and unique, Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision that held that a riding lawn mower is a “motor vehicle” for purposes of Wisconsin’s Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) statute.  Since we are in the doldrums of winter, I figured the case was worth a share as a humorous public service announcement during these dark and cold days.

In the recent State v. Shoeder case, following his departure from a local tavern, the defendant was arrested for an OWI while he was operating a riding lawn mower on the shoulder of a public roadway.  The defendant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that a riding lawn mower is not a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of the OWI statute, and instead it was more akin to Wisconsin’s definition of an “all-terrain vehicle” (OWI while on an ATV had different penalties).  The trial court and Court of Appeals disagreed with the defendant’s position.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals looked at the definitions of “motor vehicle” and “vehicle.”  Under Wisconsin law, a “motor vehicle” is any vehicle that “is self-propelled, except a vehicle operated exclusively on rail.”  Crucial to the decision was the broadly defined “vehicle,” which includes “every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except railroad trains.”  Wis. Stat. § 340.01(74).

Applying these definitions to the defendant’s chosen conveyance, the court determined that the riding lawn mower was a “motor vehicle” and “vehicle;” it is self-propelled and a device on which a person may be transported on a highway.  The court further rejected the defendant’s argument that the riding lawn mower should be considered an “all-terrain vehicle,” as it did not meet the ATV definition requirement of being “equipped with a seat designed to be straddled by the operator.”  Wis. Stat. § 340.01(2g).

It is important to highlight a very important fact that led to this defendant’s predicament:  He was using the riding lawn mower on the shoulder of a public roadway.  As with any OWI in Wisconsin, the operation must have taken place on a public roadway or highway; a homeowner’s lawn is not going to be considered a public roadway for purposes of the OWI statute should someone make the mistake to over imbibe.   That all said, the safest route is to limit your beer consumption to when you are done cutting the lawn and are sitting back enjoying the fruits of your labor.

 

Pin It on Pinterest