Case Title: Cattau v. National Insurance Services of Wisconsin, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016AP000493

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2019-04-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
2019 WI 46 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP493 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Ann Cattau, Thomas M. Beck, Linda Beckwith, 
Ardyth Bergstrom, Vicki Christman, Gail W. 
Cismoski,Kathleen A. Curtis, Janice DeMenter, 
John Dobbins, Elsie Evenson, Kris Grasley, Gary 
Haffeman, Kristine Haffeman, Kathy J. Hager,  
Gail Harrmann, Joann Harrell, Mary Louise 
Hildebrandt, Lexann Hitchcock, Jo Anne Holden, 
Karla M. Huston, Susan R. Johnson, Mary K. 
Jones, Dorothi A. Karisny, Chuck Knoeck, 
Lawrence H. Krebs, Diane D. Krueger, Helen L.  
Kurka, Judith J. Kurka Nagel, James Lantz, Jane 
E. Lantz, Thomas Marzahl, Mary Joy Mayer, 
Marjorie R. Murphy, Bruce C. Nufer, Anna P. 
Olson, Sharon O'Reilly, Patricia Ormston, Mark 
Peerenboom, Sue Peterson, James S.  
Piepenbrink, Anna Mae Prem, Jane Reimer, Mary J. 
Resch, Cynthia A. Rieck, Dianne Roth, Lucy 
Rumpf, Susan M. Schug, David K. Sebora, Suann M. 
Senso, Karla Sheehan, Sandra L. Smith, Robin L. 
Snell, Mary C. Tieman, Teresa D. Walotka,  
Patricia M. Waskawic, Mindy Weichmann, Susan 
Westphal, Vicki Wippich, Christine Wollerman, 
James A. Zipple and Levern J. Zwirchitz, 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
James Shipman, 
          Plaintiff, 
     v. 
National Insurance Services of Wisconsin, Inc. 
and MidAmerica Administrative & Retirement 
Solutions, Inc., 
          Defendants-Respondents, 
Neenah Joint School District and Community 
Insurance Corporation, 
          Intervenors-Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 383 Wis. 2d 600,918 N.W.2d 127 
 (2018 – unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 30, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 18, 2019 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Winnebago 
 
 
2
 
JUDGE: 
John A. Jorgensen 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ABRAHAMSON, J. did not participate.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners, there was a 
brief filed by Charles J. Hertel, Heath G. Mynsberge, and 
Dempsey Law Firm, LLP, Oshkosh. There was an oral argument by 
Heath G. Mynsberge.  
 
For the defendants-respondents, there was a brief filed by 
Joseph L. Olson, Mark A. Lotito, and Michael Best & Friedrich 
LLP, Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by Joseph L. Olson.  
 
For 
the 
intervenor-respondent 
Community 
Insurance 
Corporation, there was a brief filed by Lori M. Lubinsky, 
Michael D. Hahn, and Axley Brynelson, LLP, Madison.  
 
For the intervenor-respondent Neenah Joint School District, 
there was a brief filed by Ronald Stadler, Jonnathan Sacks, and 
Mallery & Zimmerman, s.c., Milwaukee.  
 
 
2019 WI 46
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP493 
(L.C. No. 
2013CV1149) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Ann Cattau, Thomas M. Beck, Linda Beckwith, 
Ardyth Bergstrom, Vicki Christman, Gail W. 
Cismoski, Kathleen A. Curtis, Janice DeMenter, 
John Dobbins, Elsie Evenson, Kris Grasley, Gary 
Haffeman, Kristine Haffeman, Kathy J. Hager, 
Gail Harrmann, Joann Harrell, Mary Louise 
Hildebrandt, Lexann Hitchcock, Jo Anne Holden, 
Karla M. Huston, Susan R. Johnson, Mary K. 
Jones, Dorothi A. Karisny, Chuck Knoeck, 
Lawrence H. Krebs, Diane D. Krueger, Helen L. 
Kurka, Judith J. Kurka Nagel, James Lantz, Jane 
E. Lantz, Thomas Marzahl, Mary Joy Mayer, 
Marjorie R. Murphy, Bruce C. Nufer, Anna P. 
Olson, Sharon O'Reilly, Patricia Ormston, Mark 
Peerenboom, Sue Peterson, James S. Piepenbrink, 
Anna Mae Prem, Jane Reimer, Mary J. Resch, 
Cynthia A. Rieck, Dianne Roth, Lucy Rumpf, 
Susan M. Schug, David K. Sebora, Suann M. 
Senso, Karla Sheehan, Sandra L. Smith, Robin L. 
Snell, Mary C. Tieman, Teresa D. Walotka, 
Patricia M. Waskawic, Mindy Weichmann, Susan 
Westphal, Vicki Wippich, Christine Wollerman, 
James A. Zipple and Levern J. Zwirchitz, 
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
 
James Shipman, 
 
          Plaintiff, 
 
     v. 
 
National Insurance Services of Wisconsin, Inc. 
and MidAmerica Administrative & Retirement 
Solutions, Inc., 
 
FILED 
 
APR 30, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
2
          Defendants-Respondents, 
 
Neenah Joint School District and Community 
Insurance  
 
Corporation, 
 
          Intervenors-Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review an unpublished decision of the 
court of appeals1 affirming an order of the circuit court that 
dismissed plaintiffs' claims.2  Plaintiffs, a group of 61 retired 
Neenah 
teachers 
and 
administrators, 
sued 
MidAmerica 
Administrative & Retirement Solutions, Inc. (MidAmerica) and 
National 
Insurance 
Services 
of 
Wisconsin, 
Inc. 
(NIS).  
MidAmerica and NIS moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim 
upon which relief may be granted.  The plaintiffs attempted to 
plead breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, 
strict responsibility misrepresentation, and negligence, all 
arising from MidAmerica and NIS's alleged mismanagement of their 
retirement benefits.   
                                                 
1 Cattau v. Nat'l Ins. Servs. of Wis., Inc., No. 2016AP493, 
unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. June 13, 2018). 
2 The Honorable John A. Jorgenson of Winnebago County 
presided. 
No. 
2016AP493   
 
3 
 
¶2 
The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's 
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims against MidAmerica and NIS.  The 
court of appeals held that our decision in Data Key Partners v. 
Permira 
Advisers 
LLC, 
2014 
WI 
86, 
356 
Wis. 2d 665, 
849 
N.W.2d 693, created a new, heightened pleading standard in 
Wisconsin, and that under this new standard, plaintiffs had 
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.   
¶3 
We granted review and unanimously conclude that our 
decision in Data Key did not change Wisconsin's pleading 
standard as previously articulated in Strid v. Converse, 111 
Wis. 2d 418, 422-23, 331 N.W.2d 350 (1983).  Accordingly, we 
reverse the decision of the court of appeals in this regard.  
However, notwithstanding that unanimous conclusion, we are 
equally divided as to whether the plaintiffs have stated a claim 
upon which relief may be granted against MidAmerica or NIS based 
on the Data Key/Strid standard.  Therefore, the decision of the 
court of appeals is affirmed by an equally divided court.  
Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Burial Sites Pres. Bd., 2018 WI 54, ¶1, 
381 Wis. 2d 601, 912 N.W. 392.    
¶4 
To explain further, the pleading standard we set out 
in Data Key is consistent with the pleading standard in Strid, 
and is grounded in Wis. Stat. § 802.02(1)(a)'s (2017-18) 
requirement that a complaint contain "[a] short and plain 
statement 
of 
the 
claim, 
identifying 
the 
transaction 
or 
occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences out of which 
the claim arises and showing that the pleader is entitled to 
relief."  When determining whether a complaint states a claim 
No. 
2016AP493   
 
4 
 
upon which relief may be granted, courts must "accept as true 
all facts well-pleaded in the complaint and the reasonable 
inferences therefrom."  Data Key, 356 Wis. 2d 665, ¶19 (citation 
omitted).  "If the facts reveal an apparent right to recover 
under any legal theory, they are sufficient as a cause of 
action."  Strid, 111 Wis. 2d at 423 (citation omitted). 
¶5 
While courts must accept all well-pleaded facts as 
true, courts cannot add facts to a complaint, and do not accept 
as true legal conclusions that are stated in the complaint.  
Data Key, 356 Wis. 2d 665, ¶19.  For this reason, "a formulaic 
recitation of the elements of a cause of action" is not enough 
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Id., ¶25.   
¶6 
"[T]he 
sufficiency 
of 
a 
complaint 
depends 
on 
substantive law that underlies the claim made because it is the 
substantive law that drives what facts must be pled."  Id., ¶31.  
If proof of the well-pleaded facts in a complaint would satisfy 
each element of a cause of action, then the complaint has stated 
a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Id., ¶21; see also 
Strid, 111 Wis. 2d at 422-23 ("It is the sufficiency of the 
facts alleged that control the determination of whether a claim 
for relief is properly plead.").  
¶7 
The defendants argue that by setting out the pleading 
standard employed by the United States Supreme Court in Bell 
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), we changed 
Wisconsin's pleading standard to a heightened "plausibility" 
standard.  However, as we explained in Data Key, we interpret 
the Supreme Court's decision in Twombly as being consistent with 
No. 
2016AP493   
 
5 
 
Strid.  Data Key, 356 Wis. 2d 665, ¶30.  Therefore, Data Key 
controls Wisconsin's pleading standard and it reaffirmed Strid.  
Id. 
¶8 
Accordingly, because we unanimously conclude that our 
decision in Data Key did not change Wisconsin's pleading 
standard as previously articulated in Strid, we reverse the 
decision of the court of appeals' interpretation of Data Key.  
However, notwithstanding our unanimous conclusion, we are 
equally divided as to whether the plaintiffs have stated a claim 
upon which relief may be granted against MidAmerica or NIS based 
on the Data Key/Strid standard.  Therefore, the decision of the 
court of appeals is affirmed by an equally divided court.  
Wingra Redi-Mix, 381 Wis. 2d 601, ¶1.    
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
¶9 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J., withdrew from participation 
before oral argument. 
 
 
No. 
2016AP493   
 
 
 
2