Does Wisconsin’s Four-Corners Rule Govern an Insurer’s Duty to Defend?

01 October 2015 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

Those who follow the work of the Wisconsin appellate courts might recognize this question as one that District II of the Court of Appeals certified to the Supreme Court nearly five years ago in Wilkinson v. Arbuckle, 2011 WI 1, 330 Wis. 2d 442, 793 N.W.2d 71, before the parties ducked an answer to the question by settling their differences, after the Supreme Court decided to accept the case.

Last month District II decided Water Well Solutions Service Group Inc. v. Consolidated Insurance Co., No. 2014AP2484 (Sept. 9, 2015), an opinion written by Chief Judge Lisa Neubauer—and, in the words of the late, great Yogi Berra, it’s like déjà vu all over again.

If Water Well decides to file a petition for review (due 30 days after the decision), the affirmative vote of three or more members of the Supreme Court should come as no surprise. Judge Paul Reilly dissented in Water Well, called on the Supreme Court specifically to answer this question, and disagreed with the majority’s assessment that the four-corners rule was “well-established” in Wisconsin—invoking the somewhat controversial rule from Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997), that the Court of Appeals lacks authority to overrule its own decisions to argue that the majority could not dismiss earlier Court of Appeals decisions recognizing exceptions to the four-corners rule as having been “tacitly overruled” by the same court. Only time will tell, but Water Well could present an interesting case not only for the insurance-defense bar, but for all appellate practitioners in Wisconsin.

Water Well began (as one might have guessed) with allegedly negligent repairs to a municipal water well. The City of Waukesha hired Water Well to replace an old pump and, if necessary, to rethread the pipe column and to replace any deteriorated pipe with new pipe. The pump later unthreaded from the column and fell to the bottom of the well. The city’s insurer sued Water Well, which tendered its defense to its insurer. But its insurer denied coverage and refused to defend. Water Well settled the case with the city’s insurer and then sued its own insurer for breaching the duty to defend.

Water Well’s dispute with its insurer, both in the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals, focused on two policy exclusions: for “your product” and “your work.” The policy didn’t cover losses stemming from product that Water Well supplied and work that it performed, though it did cover losses arising from product supplied by and work performed by others (e.g., by a subcontractor). Following the four-corners rule, the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals looked only to the allegations of the underlying complaint in the action against Water Well to decide that the exclusions applied because allegedly it was Water Well’s faulty pipe column and negligent threading that caused the pump to fall. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

But, Water Well claims, that wasn’t the whole story. In fact, Water Well hadn’t supplied all the faulty pipe, and a subcontractor had performed at least some of the rethreading work.

Naturally, those facts weren’t in the underlying complaint. The city’s insurer certainly had no incentive to draft an initial pleading containing facts that might diminish Water Well’s liability. Water Well attempted to prove the rest of the story by affidavit in its case against its insurer, but that was outside of what the Court of Appeals thought that it could consider—outside of the four corners of the underlying complaint.

Judge Reilly described this result as “absurd,” effectively allowing the city’s insurer, “an entity that has no privity of contract[,] to dictate whether [Water Well’s policy] provides defense and coverage.” It would be fairer, in his view, if Water Well could have introduced extrinsic facts showing that the actual claim against it fell outside the exclusions.

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

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.