Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Supreme Court arguments February 10, 2010

9:45 a.m. Zarder v. Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company (2008AP919) review of the Court of Appeals decision, 2009 WI App 34, 316 Wis. 2d 573, 765 N.W.2d 839, on the issues:
Does a policy of insurance mandate uninsured motorist coverage for an alleged “hit-and-run” accident involving an unidentified motor vehicle and an insured where there is no “run,” as that term is understood in the context of Wis. Stat. §632.32(4)?

When an insurance policy covers “hit-and-run” as part of an uninsured motorist provision and the policy does not define the term, does “run” mean to flee without stopping?

Does Hayne v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co. , 115 Wis. 2d 68, 339 N.W.2d 588 (1983) provide a binding legal definition of “run”?
Car Talk: Justices to consider when a motorist has ‘run’ from scene of accident, by Alex De Grand, State Bar of Wisconsin


10:45 a.m. Blum v. 1st Auto & Casualty Ins. Co. (2008AP1324) review of the Court of Appeals decision, 2009 WI App 19, 315 Wis. 2d 822, 762 N.W.2d 819, on the issues:
Whether an insured motorist is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage when he/she is seriously injured by a vehicle that meets the policy definition of “uninsured motor vehicle” and satisfies all of the conditions for coverage set forth in the policy, but the operator of the vehicle possesses insurance.

Whether uninsured motorist coverage should be determined by the ordinary meaning of the terms and definitions set forth in an insurance policy or limited by the court’s interpretation of the minimum coverage required by Wis. Stat. §632.32(4) (See Hull v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 222 Wis. 2d 627, 586 N.W.2d 863 (1998)).

Whether a Court of Appeals’ decision possesses precedential value after the decision is overruled by the supreme court and the court expressly declines to limit the decision to its facts (See Hemerley v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 127 Wis. 2d 304, 379 N.W.2d 860 (Ct. App. 1985) and Hull v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., supra).

Whether an ambiguous insurance policy should be construed in favor of the insured or construed in favor of the drafter.
Synopsis at Supreme Court accepts five new cases


1:30 p.m. State v. Ringer (2008AP652-CR) review of the Court of Appeals decision on the issues:
Under the court’s ruling in State v. DeSantis, 155 Wis. 2d 774, 456 N.W.2d 600 (1990), what is the necessary threshold to show that a victim’s previous rape allegations were untruthful?

May a prior untruthful allegation of sexual assault be proven by extrinsic evidence under State v. Rognrud, 156 Wis. 2d 783, 457 N.W.2d 573 (Ct. App. 1990)?

Did the State waive its right to raise the issue regarding proof by extrinsic evidence?
Synopsis at Supreme Court accepts eight new cases

Justices to consider defendant’s use of prior false allegations of sexual assault, by Alex De Grand, State Bar of Wisconsin