White v. General Cas. Co. of Wisconsin
| Decision Date | 27 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-303,83-303 |
| Citation | 118 Wis.2d 433,348 N.W.2d 614 |
| Parties | James WHITE, Cindy White, Jennifer White, a minor, and Julie White, a minor, by their Guardian ad Litem, Michael J. Donovan, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Respondents, v. GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, a domestic corporation, Lisa M. Kowalski and Jerome Kowalski, Defendants-Respondents and Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Donovan (argued) and Mark Schroeder of Hausmann, McNally & Hupy, S.C., Milwaukee, for plaintiffs-appellants and cross-respondents.
James R. Sommers of Hunter & Sommers, Waukesha, for defendants-respondents and cross-appellants.
Before SCOTT, C.J., BROWN, P.J., and NETTESHEIM, J.
The Whites appeal from that part of a judgment denying them additional interest and double costs. The primary issue before us is whether sec. 807.01(3) and (4), Stats., 1 applies to a joint settlement offer made on behalf of individual family members in a personal injury lawsuit. We hold that the additional interest and double costs provisions of this statute do not apply to a joint settlement offer.
General Casualty Company of Wisconsin and Lisa and Jerome Kowalski also cross-appeal from the judgment based upon jury verdicts for damages in favor of the Whites. They claim certain of the damages awarded were excessive and that a new trial is therefore required. We find that there is credible evidence to support the verdicts. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court in its entirety.
This case arose out of claims brought by the members of the White family to recover damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of an automobile collision with respondent Lisa Kowalski. At the time of the collision, Lisa Kowalski was driving a car owned by her father, Jerome Kowalski, and insured under a motor vehicle liability insurance policy by General Casualty.
Because liability was not contested, only the issue of the amount of damages was scheduled for trial. Prior to trial, a joint offer of settlement was tendered to the respondents on behalf of all of the Whites for $96,319.26, the amount remaining on the liability policy issued to Jerome Kowalski by General Casualty. This offer was rejected by the respondents who, in a letter by their attorney, requested that the offer be broken down individually among the four White family members. The Whites never submitted separate offers.
The respondents subsequently made an itemized offer of settlement as follows: (a) James White--$62,500; (b) Cindy White--$1,000; (c) Jennifer White--$3,500, and (d) Julie White--$3,000. The Whites rejected this offer, and a trial on the issue of damages ensued.
The jury returned a special verdict awarding damages against the respondents as follows: (a) James White--$90,000; (b) Cindy White--$14,500; (c) Jennifer White--$10,000; (d) Julie White--$3,100, and (e) James White--$20,668.12 (the latter damages amount was stipulated to as past medical and hospital expenses of the entire White family).
Both parties filed motions after verdict. General Casualty and the Kowalskis moved, on a number of grounds, for a reduction in certain of the jury damage awards and, in the alternative, for a new trial. The Whites requested, inter alia, that the court grant the double costs and additional interest provided under sec. 807.01(3) and (4), Stats. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict for the Whites assessing the insurance policy limit of $96,319.26 against General Casualty and the balance of the jury awards against the Kowalskis. 2 The trial court denied all other motions, finding that the verdict was "amply and fully supported by credible evidence" and that the provisions of sec. 807.01 (3) and (4) were inapplicable to the case. 3 Both parties appeal.
On appeal, the Whites renew their post-verdict motion argument that the double costs and additional interest provisions of sec. 807.01(3) and (4), Stats., apply to the joint offer of settlement made in this case prior to trial. General Casualty and the Kowalskis again argue that the damages awarded to James, Cindy and Jennifer White were excessive and require a new trial.
Because there is no authority on this issue, we must construe the provisions of sec. 807.01(3) and (4), Stats., in order to determine whether the double costs and additional interest specified by these subsections apply to a rejected joint settlement offer made on behalf of individual plaintiffs in a lawsuit.
Construction of a statute is a question of law subject to independent review by this court. Barth v. Board of Education, 108 Wis.2d 511, 517, 322 N.W.2d 694, 697 (Ct.App.1982). In construing a statute, the primary goal is to reach a reasonable construction which will effectuate the statute's purpose. State ex rel. Melentowich v. Klink, 108 Wis.2d 374, 380 The basic purpose of the provisions provided under sec. 807.01, Stats., is to encourage settlement of cases prior to trial. Graves v. Travelers Insurance Co., 66 Wis.2d 124, 140, 224 N.W.2d 398, 407 (1974). The Whites argue this purpose requires the conclusion that the double costs and additional interest provisions specified under sec. 807.01(3) and (4), Stats., apply to a joint settlement offer made by individual plaintiff family members. We do not read the statute to require such an application.
321 N.W.2d 272, 275 (1982). The primary source of statutory construction is the language of the statute itself. Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 110 Wis.2d 455, 462, 329 N.W.2d 143, 146 (1983). If the statutory language is plain and clearly understood, that meaning must be given to the statute. In the Matter of Athans, 107 Wis.2d 331, 335, 320 N.W.2d 30, 32 (Ct.App.1982). [118 Wis.2d 438] However, so as to avoid unreasonable and absurd consequences, the plain meaning of the statute should not be extended without restriction. State ex rel. Opelt v. Crisp, 81 Wis.2d 106, 116, 260 N.W.2d 25, 30 (1977)
Section 807.01(3) and (4), Stats., provides in relevant part:
(3) After issue is joined but at least 20 days before trial, the plaintiff may serve upon the defendant a written offer of settlement for the sum, or property, or to the effect therein specified, with costs.... If the offer of settlement is not accepted and the plaintiff recovers a more favorable judgment, the plaintiff shall recover double the amount of the taxable costs.
(4) If there is an offer of settlement by a party under this section which is not accepted and the party recovers a judgment which is greater than or equal to the amount specified in the offer of settlement, the party is entitled to interest at the annual rate of 12% .... [Emphasis added.]
The plain language of these provisions indicates that double costs and additional interest are recoverable if an individual offer of settlement made by a single plaintiff or party is rejected by the defendant and that particular plaintiff or party is subsequently awarded a greater judgment. The plain language does not contemplate an extension of this meaning to include a joint settlement offer made by a group of plaintiffs or parties involved in the same lawsuit.
We are aware of the general rule of statutory construction that singular terms in a statute include the plural form of the term. Sec. 990.001(1), Stats. However, we decline to follow the rule because we find that a construction in accordance with it would lead to a result inconsistent with the statutory intent. Sec. 990.001. A construction extending the statute to include joint settlement offers would lead to an unreasonable and absurd result in some cases.
Under certain situations involving multiple plaintiffs in a single lawsuit, the aggregate jury award may exceed a rejected joint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Industrial Risk Ins. v. Am. Eng. Testing
...or a combination of both." ¶ 79 To resolve this issue we review the relevant case law, starting with White v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin, 118 Wis.2d 433, 348 N.W.2d 614 (Ct.App.1984). There, the court addressed whether a joint settlement offer made on behalf of individual family memb......
-
Prosser v. Leuck
...of disputes. See Schmidt v. Schmidt, 212 Wis.2d 405, 412-13, 569 N.W.2d 74 (Ct.App.1997); White v. General Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, 118 Wis.2d 433, 438, 348 N.W.2d 614 (Ct.App.1984). As noted by the court of appeals in this case, there is no reason that an insurer, bound by its fiduciary duty......
-
Lands' End, Inc. v. City of Dodgeville
...592 N.W.2d 178 (1999) (citing Schmidt v. Schmidt, 212 Wis.2d 405, 412–13, 569 N.W.2d 74 (Ct.App.1997) ; White v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis., 118 Wis.2d 433, 438, 348 N.W.2d 614 (Ct.App.1984) ).¶ 204 Previously, the court of appeals had asserted that “[t]he purpose of imposing costs and interest ......
-
DeWitt Ross & Stevens v. Galaxy Gaming
...& Cas. Ins. Co., 200 Wis. 2d 270, 280, 546 N.W.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1996). Similarly, we said in White v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin, 118 Wis. 2d 433, 439-40, 348 N.W.2d 614 (Ct. App. 1984), that § 807.01(3) and (4) cannot be used to unreasonably force [17] ¶ 31. The logical corollary to......