Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co.
| Citation | 2012 WI 26,339 Wis.2d 125,810 N.W.2d 465 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010AP355.,2010AP355. |
| Parties | HERITAGE FARMS, INC., Audrey Bunchkowski, Russell Bunchkowski, Ruth Dutcher, Howard Dutcher, Sally Freitag, Amy Holzwart, James Holzwart, Kathleen Khin, Glenwood Zellmer, Daryl Lloyd, Donald Lloyd, Judy Maas, Jeffrey Maas, Carolyn Mueller, Lois Rucich, George Rucich, Donna Semrow, Harland Semrow, Beverly Singer, Norman A. Singer Trust, Joan Singer, Gordon Singer, Singer Living Trust, Inga Stoellinger, Otto Stoellinger, Catherine Swanton, Swanton Family Trust, Christine Toliver, Alan Toliver, Krista Zimmer and Norman Zimmer, Plaintiffs–Appellants–Petitioners,Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Auto–Owners Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company of America and Acuity, a mutual insurance company, Involuntary–Plaintiffs, v. MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY, J.J.J. Recreation Corporation d/b/a Lake of the Woods Campground, American Family Mutual Insurance Company and Jeffrey Knaack, Defendants–Respondents.Ted Schwochert, Paul B. Schwochert, Helen Schwochert and Sue Schroeder, Plaintiffs–Appellants–Petitioners, v. Markel Insurance Company, J.J.J. Recreation Corporation d/b/a Lake of the Woods Campground, American Family Mutual Insurance Company and Jeffrey Knaack, Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners there were briefs filed by Mark L. Thomsen, Sarah F. Kaas and Cannon & Dunphy, S.C., Brookfield, Clay R. Dutcher and Dutcher Law Office, L.L.C., Wautoma and George W. Curtis, Brian P. Beisenstein and Curtis Law Office, Oshkosh and oral argument by Mark Thomsen.
For the defendants-respondents there was a brief filed by John V. McCoy, Brian D. Parish and McCoy Law Group, S.C., Waukesha, Mark S. Henkel and First Law Group, Stevens Point and oral argument by John V. McCoy.
[339 Wis.2d 132] ¶ 1 This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals, Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Insurance Co., 2011 WI App 12, 331 Wis.2d 64, 793 N.W.2d 896, that affirmed an order by the Waushara County Circuit Court 1 granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for payment of double damages and reasonable costs for legal representation under Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1) (2003–04) 2 and for 12 percent interest thereon.
¶ 2 The plaintiffs consist of Heritage Farms, Inc. and several other landowners (collectively, Heritage Farms) whose properties were extensively damaged as a result of a 2003 forest fire in Marquette and Waushara Counties, commonly referred to as the Crystal Lake Fire. A jury determined that the fire was negligently caused by Jeffrey Knaack (Knaack), who ignited and failed to properly extinguish a burn pile at the Lake of the Woods Campground. Post-verdict, Heritage Farms moved for judgment against Knaack, the campground, and their respective insurers (collectively, Markel) 3 for double damages and reasonable costs for legal representation pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1).
¶ 3 This is the second time these parties have appeared before us. See Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co. (hereafter Heritage Farms I ), 4 2009 WI 27, 316 Wis.2d 47, 762 N.W.2d 652. In Heritage Farms I, we held that civil liability for forest fires under Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1) is not limited to a specific class of tortfeasor such as a railroad corporation and that a violation under Wis. Stat. § 26.20 5 is not a prerequisite to the application of Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1). Id., ¶ 13. We further concluded that § 26.21(1) does not require a showing of gross negligence. Id., ¶ 37.
[339 Wis.2d 134] ¶ 4 After our decision in Heritage Farms I, Heritage Farms again requested the circuit court to award double damages and reasonable costs for legal representation under Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1). The circuit court determined that the decision to award double damages and reasonable costs for legal representation under § 26.21(1) is subject to the court's discretion. The circuit court awarded Heritage Farms its attorney fees and costs. However, the court declined to exercise its discretion to double Heritage Farms' damages, reasoning that Knaack's conduct did not necessarily warrant punishment beyond the payment of compensatory damages. The court of appeals affirmed.
¶ 5 Heritage Farms petitioned this court for review, which we granted. We now reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the circuit court with instructions to enter judgment in accordance with this opinion.
¶ 6 This case presents several issues for our review:
(1) Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1), if it is determined that the owner's property was injured or destroyed by a forest fire that occurred through willfulness, malice, or negligence, is the property owner entitled to double damages as a matter of course, or is an award of double damages discretionary?
(a) Assuming we conclude that the property owner is entitled to double damages under § 26.21(1) as a matter of course, should we apply our holding only prospectively?
(b) Assuming we conclude that an award of double damages under § 26.21(1) is discretionary, is the decision to award double damages subject to the circuit court's discretion or reserved for the fact-finder? Relatedly, does a party have a constitutional right to have a jury decide whether to award double damages under § 26.21(1)?
(i) Assuming we conclude that the decision to award double damages under § 26.21(1) is subject to the circuit court's discretion, what standard, if any, should the court follow in making its determination?
(2) Assuming we conclude that Heritage Farms is entitled to double damages under Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1) as a matter of course, is Heritage Farms entitled to 12 percent interest on that amount from the date of the jury's verdict pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 814.04(4)? Is Heritage Farms entitled to 12 percent interest on its award of attorney fees and costs from the date of the jury's verdict?
(a) Is § 814.04(4) unconstitutional on its face or as applied to Markel?
¶ 7 We conclude that pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1), if it is determined that the owner's property was injured or destroyed by a forest fire that occurred through willfulness, malice, or negligence, then the property owner is entitled to double damages as a matter of course. We apply this holding retrospectively. Consequently, in this case, because the jury determined that Heritage Farms' property was damaged by a forest fire caused by Knaack's negligence, Heritage Farms is entitled to double damages as a matter of course.
¶ 8 We further conclude that pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 814.04(4), Heritage Farms is entitled to 12 percent interest on its double damages award from the date of the jury's verdict. At the same time, we determine that Heritage Farms is entitled to 12 percent interest on its award of attorney fees and costs only from the date of that award, not from the date of the jury's verdict. Finally, we conclude that Markel has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that § 814.04(4) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to Markel.
¶ 9 The facts and procedural history of this case were recited in Heritage Farms I and need not be repeated at length here. See 316 Wis.2d 47, ¶¶ 3–4, 762 N.W.2d 652. It is sufficient to state that Heritage Farms' property was extensively damaged by the 2003 Crystal Lake Fire. The fire originated when a large burn pile, ignited lawfully by Knaack six weeks earlier, flared up and escaped the Lake of the Woods Campground. The fire burned 572 acres of land before it was finally contained.
¶ 10 Heritage Farms filed a civil action against Markel, claiming negligence, trespass, and nuisance, and seeking double damages and reasonable costs for legal representation under Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1). The negligence, trespass, and nuisance claims were submitted to a jury. On October 13, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Heritage Farms on all three claims and awarded Heritage Farms $568,422 in compensatory damages.
¶ 11 Post-verdict, Heritage Farms moved for judgment against Markel for double damages and reasonable costs for legal representation under Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1). The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that § 26.21(1) applies only to defendants who are railroad corporations. Accordingly, the circuit court entered judgment on the jury verdict. On July 17, 2007, Markel paid the entirety of that judgment plus interest.
¶ 12 Heritage Farms appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed.
¶ 13 In Heritage Farms I, we reversed that decision of the court of appeals. 316 Wis.2d 47, 762 N.W.2d 652. We held that Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1) is not limited to a specific class of tortfeasor such as a railroad corporation and that a violation under Wis. Stat. § 26.20 is not a prerequisite to the application of Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1). Id., ¶ 13. We further concluded that § 26.21(1) does not require a showing of gross negligence. Id., ¶ 37.
¶ 14 Markel moved for reconsideration, which we denied on May 28, 2009. Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co., No. 2007AP983, unpublished order .
¶ 15 The issues before us today arose subsequent to our decision in Heritage Farms I. On August 20, 2009, upon remand, Heritage Farms again moved the circuit court for payment of double damages and reasonable costs for legal representation under Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1). Heritage Farms also requested 12 percent interest on those amounts from the date of the jury's verdict, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 814.04(4).6
¶ 16 Markel opposed Heritage Farms' motion, arguing that Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1) does not mandate the payment of double damages and reasonable costs for legal representation. Rather, Markel contended, the statute's plain language is permissive, making clear that the determination of whether to impose double damages and costs for legal representation is left to the fact-finder's discretion....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Dep't of Natural Res. v. Wis. Court of Appeals
...a statute." Karow v. Milwaukee Cty. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 82 Wis. 2d 565, 570, 263 N.W.2d 214 (1978) (citation omitted); Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co., 2012 WI 26, ¶ 32, 339 Wis. 2d 125, 810 N.W.2d 465 (stating that when construing a statute, "we presume that the word ‘shall’ is man......
-
Banuelos v. Univ. of Wis. Hosps. & Clinics Auth.
...to shoulder a substantial cost; the total fee that can be charged under paragraph (b) for an average request of 61 pages equals only $36.35. Id. The statutory scheme reflects legislative balancing of patients' interest in guaranteed and affordable access to their health care records and the......
-
State v. Ziegler
...law that this court reviews de novo while benefitting from the analyses of the court of appeals and circuit court. See Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co., 2012 WI 26, ¶ 24, 339 Wis.2d 125, 810 N.W.2d 465. We also independently review whether the evidence presented to the jury was suffi......
-
Associated Bank N.A. v. Jack W. Collier, Deborah L. Collier, Greenbrier Developers, LLC
...inequitable results. Id., ¶ 47; see also [Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis.2d 103, 109, 280 N.W.2d 757 (1979) ]. Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co., 2012 WI 26, ¶ 45, 339 Wis.2d 125, 810 N.W.2d 465 (footnote omitted). 10.See, e.g., Kellogg v. Coller, 47 Wis. 649, 656, 3 N.W. 433 (1879......