About Us Offices Careers Blogs & Podcasts
Practice Areas Sectors People Insights
Practice Areas Sectors People Insights
About Us Offices Careers Blogs & Podcasts
Home Insights Estate of Kriefall v. Sizzler: Fee Shifting Under the Weinhagen Rule
See Insights
PDF

Estate of Kriefall v. Sizzler: Fee Shifting Under the Weinhagen Rule

16 August 2012 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

June’s decision from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Estate of Kriefall v. Sizzler contains a brief exposition on fees that’s worth noting.

It establishes that fees cannot be shifted under the 1922 Weinhagen rule, which held that an innocent party, wrongfully drawn into litigation with a third party, can recover fees against the wrongdoer.

Here, the party seeking fees (Sizzler) was found to be 0% negligent with respect to the E. coli contamination that led to the claims, but the court said that the wrongfulness that could give rise to fees under Weinhagen is not satisfied merely because the party that seeks to recover fees has been found non-negligent.

The rule requires that the “innocent” party have been sucked into the need to defend itself by the breach of fiduciary duty or fraud of the party from which recovery is sought (or wrongful conduct of that nature).

What makes this aspect of the case particularly noteworthy is that the court disapproves of the Seventh Circuit’s reading of Weinhagen in a 1988 case called Fidelity and notes, therefore (quite correctly), that Fidelity does not state Wisconsin law.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Practice Areas
Appellate

Insights