Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Smith
| Citation | 453 N.W.2d 856,154 Wis.2d 199 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2102,88-2102 |
| Parties | EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, a Mutual Company, a Wisconsin Insurance Corporation, Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company, a Wisconsin Insurance Corporation, Worldwide Underwriters Insurance Company, a Wisconsin Insurance Corporation, Plaintiffs-Respondents-Cross Appellants, v. Charles SMITH, Treasurer of the State of Wisconsin, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
Curtis D. Forslund (argued), Jeffrey D. Fick and Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty, and Bennett, Minneapolis, Minn., David J. Epstein, Boston, Mass. (argued), Richard A. Victor, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), with whom on the brief was Donald J. Hanaway, Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellant-cross respondent.
Timothy J. Muldowney (argued), and LaFollette & Sinykin, Madison, for plaintiff-respondent-cross appellant.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County, Susan Steingass, circuit Judge. The circuit court issued a declaratory judgment determining the rights of Employers Insurance of Wausau and the State Treasurer under the Wisconsin Unclaimed Property Acts 1 as they relate to uncashed worker's compensation benefit checks issued by Employers Insurance during the years 1964 through 1975 to injured workers in worker's compensation cases that were not contested. 2
The circuit court declared (1) that these uncashed checks are not intangible property subject to the Wisconsin Unclaimed Property Acts; (2) that section 177.02(1), Stats.1987-88, establishing a five-year period for the presumption of abandonment, does not apply to uncashed checks issued prior to December 31, 1984; and (3) that the statute of limitations does not bar the Treasurer's cause of action because the statute had been tolled.
The defendant, Charles Smith, Treasurer of the State of Wisconsin 3 appealed from that part of the judgment declaring that the Acts do not apply to uncashed worker's compensation benefit checks in uncontested cases and that the five-year period for the presumption of abandonment (section 177.02(1), Stats.1987-88) applies prospectively only. Employers Insurance cross-appealed from that part of the judgment declaring that the statute of limitations does not bar the Treasurer's cause of action. We granted Employers Insurance's petition to bypass the court of appeals. Sections 808.05 and 809.60(1), Stats.1987-88.
We reverse that part of the circuit court's judgment declaring that the Acts do not apply to uncashed worker's compensation benefit checks in uncontested cases. We hold that the obligations represented by the uncashed worker's compensation benefit checks in uncontested cases are intangible property subject to the reporting and delivery requirements of the Wisconsin Unclaimed Property Acts.
We reverse that part of the circuit court's judgment declaring that section 177.02(1), Stats.1987-88, applies prospectively only. We hold that the applicable period of abandonment for uncashed worker's compensation benefit checks issued prior to December 31, 1984, is five years under sections 177.02(1) and 177.37(2), Stats.1987-88.
We affirm that part of the judgment declaring that the statute of limitations does not bar the Treasurer's cause of action. We hold that the Treasurer's cause of action did not accrue for purposes of the statute of limitations because Employers Insurance failed to report the uncashed checks under the Wisconsin Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, ch. 177, Stats.1981-82.
This appeal involves the relationship between the Wisconsin Unclaimed Property Acts and the Wisconsin Worker's Compensation Law. As the circuit court observed, the statutes and their interrelationship are complex.
In 1970 Wisconsin adopted, with some modifications, the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act of 1966 promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws as chapter 177 of the Wisconsin Statutes. We refer to this Act as the old Act and to sections in the old Act, as subsequently amended by the legislature, in the 1981-82 Statutes. In 1983 the Wisconsin legislature repealed and recreated chapter 177, Stats.1981-82, adopting, with some modifications, the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act of 1981 promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws. We refer to this Act as the new Act and to sections in the new Act in the 1987-88 Statutes. The two Uniform Acts are similar. Consequently the provisions of the old Act and the new Act are similar.
Both Uniform Acts are "modern" escheat statutes. While a traditional escheat statute transfers the ownership of abandoned property to the state, the Uniform Acts simply transfer custody, but not ownership, of the abandoned property to the state. The owner's interest in the property is protected because the state never claims title to the property. 4 Under the Acts, the state remains the perpetual custodian for the owner. 5 The major purpose of the Acts is two-fold: (1) to protect the owner by giving the owner the opportunity to recover the property from the custodian of the property, the state, at any time; and (2) to give the state rather than the holder of the unclaimed property the benefit of the use of the property until the owner claims it. 6
The material facts are not disputed for purposes of this appeal. The legal conclusions to be drawn from these facts are in dispute. This case presents issues of law, and we shall decide the three issues of statutory interpretation in turn.
The first issue is whether uncashed checks issued by Employers Insurance to pay worker's compensation benefits to injured workers in uncontested cases represent property subject to chapter 177, the Wisconsin Unclaimed Property Acts.
According to the record, checks were uncashed for many reasons. Some were not cashed because the post office failed to deliver them; the name or address of the payee was incorrect. Some payees misplaced or lost the checks. Some believed, albeit mistakenly, that by cashing the checks they would waive rights under the Worker's Compensation Law. Still other payees did not cash checks because their attorneys incorrectly advised them not to do so.
The circumstances surrounding the issuance and delivery of a worker's compensation benefit check in the amount of $202 provides one example of how and why a check remained uncashed. The payee received benefit checks weekly for five months while he was recuperating from an eye injury and unable to work. He believed that he had cashed each of the weekly benefit checks upon receipt. One of the checks that Employers Insurance had issued to him, however, was never cashed. It is unclear whether the payee had not received the check or had received it and mislaid it. It is clear, however, that Employers Insurance did not deny or dispute the payee's worker's compensation claim. Indeed, in spite of its retaining possession of the money the uncashed check represented, Employers Insurance considered that it had satisfied its obligation to pay the injured employee under the Worker's Compensation Law.
The issue presented in this appeal does not turn on the reason a worker's compensation benefit check in an uncontested case goes uncashed. The examples are illustrative only. The determination of whether uncashed worker's compensation benefit checks in uncontested cases are covered under the Wisconsin Unclaimed Property Acts turns on the nature of the obligation represented by the uncashed check. To make this determination we look first to the Wisconsin Unclaimed Property Acts and then the Worker's Compensation Law.
The Wisconsin Unclaimed Property Acts require a holder of property presumed abandoned by an owner to report and turn over the abandoned property to the State Treasurer. The Acts define a "holder" as any person "in possession of property belonging to another" or who is "indebted to another on an obligation." 7 "Owner," under the Acts, is defined in terms of the underlying legal relationship on which the owner's property right is based. "Owner" means "a depositor in the case of a deposit" or "creditor, claimant or payee in the case of other intangible property...." 8
The Wisconsin Unclaimed Property Acts also define the types of property included within their purview. The new Act states that except as otherwise provided in the statutes, "all intangible property ... that is held, issued or owing in the ordinary course of the holder's business and that has remained unclaimed by the owner for more than 5 years after it became payable or distributable is presumed abandoned." Section 177.02(1), Stats.1987-88. (emphasis added) The new Act also states that "intangible property" includes "amounts due and payable under the terms of insurance policies." Section 177.01(10)(e), Stats.1987-88 (emphasis added).
The old Act stated, "All intangible personal property, not otherwise covered ... that is held or owing in this state in the ordinary course of the holder's business and has remained unclaimed by the owner for more than 10 years after it became payable or distributable is presumed abandoned." Section 177.09, Stats.1981-82. (emphasis added) 9
The Treasurer maintains that the language of chapters 102 and 177 "fit like hand and glove." Section 102.43 and 102.44 delineate the benefit level and a schedule by which benefits must be paid to the worker. Section 102.43 provides that benefits are "due ... and shall be payable weekly...." The Treasurer contends the issuance of the worker's compensation benefit checks that are due and payable under the worker's compensation law are due and payable under the new and old Acts.
The Treasurer also points to the Standard Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance Policy to support his contention that the Worker's Compensation Law and the Acts complement each other. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chrysler Outboard Corp.
... ... Dean, 148 Wis.2d 630, 436 N.W.2d 308 (1989), Kohnke v. St. Paul Fire Ins. Co., 144 Wis.2d 352, 424 N.W.2d 191 (1988), and Borello v. U.S. Oil Co., ... See, e.g., Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Smith, 154 Wis.2d 199, 223-24, 453 N.W.2d 856 (1990) ... ...
-
Christ v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
...a suable party against whom it may be enforced, and a party who has a present right to enforce it.” Emp'rs Ins. of Wausau v. Smith, 154 Wis.2d 199, 231, 453 N.W.2d 856 (1990) (quoting Barry v. Minahan, 127 Wis. 570, 573, 107 N.W. 488 (1906) ). These criteria are not met “until the plaintiff......
-
Matthies v. Positive Safety Mfg. Co.
... ... 2d at 331 (quoting Butzow v. Wausau Mem'l Hosp., 51 Wis. 2d 281, 288-89, 187 N.W.2d 349 (1971) ), (other ... Ctr., 223 Wis. 2d 288, 293-94, 588 N.W.2d 19 (1999) (quoting Employers" Ins. v. Smith, 154 Wis. 2d 199, 453 N.W.2d 856 (1990) ) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Hillman v. Columbia County, 90-0469
... ... COLUMBIA COUNTY, Columbia Sheriff's Department, James Smith, ... Individually and as Sheriff of Columbia County, Robert ... Zanow, ... Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Smith, 154 Wis.2d 199, 226, 453 N.W.2d 856, 867 (1990) ... ...