### COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 8, 2024

Samuel A. Christensen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See W IS . S TAT . § 808.10 and R ULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 20 22AP 401 Cir. Ct. No. 2021CV 17 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT II

T IMOTHY W OLTER ,
P LAINTIFF - A PPELLANT ,

V . G ERMANTOWN M UTUAL I NSURANCE C OMPANY ,
D EFENDANT - R ESPONDENT .

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Fond du Lac County:
TRICIA L. WALKER, Judge. Affirmed

.

Before Neubauer, Grogan and Lazar, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in W IS . S TAT . R ULE 809.23(3).No. 20 22AP 401

2 ¶ 1 PER CURIAM. Timothy Wolter appeals from an order dismissing

on summar y judgment his action against Germantown Mutual Insurance Company. Wolter had accused Germantown of breach of contract for unreasonably delaying payment o n his fire claim. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.

¶ 2 On July 21, 2020, a residential investment property owned by Wolter caught fire, resulting in significant damage. The property was insured by Germantown with a policy limit of $256,000. Wolter promptly filed a claim, and
Germantown dispatched its adjuste r, Jason Gostomski, to the scene

. ¶ 3 Gost omski conducted a brief examination of the property the day of
the fire. He then returned to it the following day with a fire investigator . While there, a local official 1 told Gostomski that the f ire might have been of incendiary origin. Gostomski subsequently retained an attorney to assist him.

¶ 4 By letter dated August 10, 2020, Gostomski acknowledged the claim
and informed Wolter that Germantown would proceed with an investigat ion of the fire’s cause and origin. He noted that such an investigation was permitted under the terms of the policy. 2

¶ 5 By letter dated August 2 6 , 2020, Gostomski’s attorney informed
Wolter that he needed to provide a sworn statement and proof of loss as soon as

1 Gostomski described the local official as “somebody from the City of Fond du Lac Fire Department or Police Department.”

2 According to the policy, one of Wolter’s “Duties After Loss” was to “[c]ooperate with [Germantown] in the investigation of a claim.” Germantown had no obligation to provide coverage if Wolter failed to comply with his duties.No. 20 22AP 401

3 possible but no later than sixty days. Requiring such a statement was also permitted under the terms of the policy. 3 Wolter eventually submitted a statement , which included an estimate for the cost of repairs, on October 23 , 202 0.

¶ 6 Four days later , Gostomski’s attorney sent another letter advising
Wolter that Germantown wanted to conduct an examination under oath (EUO). Again, requiring a n EUO was permitted under the terms of the policy. 4 The EUO
was initia lly scheduled for November 11, 2020. At Wolter’s request, it was rescheduled for December 3, 2020.

¶ 7 During the EUO, Wolter acknowledged that it was reasonable for an insurer to investigate the circumstances surrounding a c laim like his. He further acknowledged that there had been a fire at the property just a few months earlier
that he had extinguished himself

. Wolter was unsure how the earlier fire started , and he did not call the fire department about it.

¶ 8 Gostomski’s fire investigator never was able to provide an opinion

as to the cause and origin of the July 21, 2020 fire. This was due to insufficient
access to the property and the failure of local officials to issue any reports regarding their investigat ion . Accordingly, after acquiring an additional estimate for the costs of repairs, Germantown paid Wolter the policy limit of $256,000 on December 30, 2020.

3 According to the policy, another one of Wolter’s “Duties After Loss” was to “[s]end to [Germantown], within 60 days after [its] request, [his] signed, sworn proof of loss ....”

4 According to the policy, another one of Wolter’s “Duties After Loss” was to “[s]ubmit to examination under oath

... .”No. 20 22AP 401

4 ¶ 9 Approximately two weeks later, Wolter brought this action against Germantown, accusing it of breach of contract for unreasonably delaying payment
on his claim. 5 See Racine C oun ty v. Oracular Milwaukee, Inc. , 2010 WI 25, ¶28 n.8, 323 Wis. 2d 682, 781 N.W.2d 88 (explaining that there is a duty to perform contracts with “‘reasonable e xpedience’”) (citation omitted). The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. Ultimately , the circuit court granted Germantown’s motion and dismissed the action. This appeal follows.

¶ 10 We review a circuit court’s decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the circuit court. Green Spring
Farms v. Kersten , 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987). Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no ge nuine issues of material fact and one party is entitled t o judgment as a matter of law. W IS

. S TAT

. § 802.08(2) (2021

- 22). 6

¶ 11 On appeal, Wolter contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his action on summary judgment. Citing t he five

- month delay between his claim
and Germantown’s payment, he insists that Germantown breached its contract with him

. Alternatively, Wolter asserts that the reasonableness of delay is a question best left to a jury and not summary judgment . We are n ot persuaded by Wolter’s arguments.

5 Wolter also accused Germantown of bad faith and sought statutory interest for the delay in payment

. When the circuit court dismissed the b reach of contract claim, it dismissed those other claims as well

.

6 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021

- 22 version unless otherwise noted.No. 20 22AP 401

5 ¶ 12 Here, the time lapse between Wolter’s claim and Germantown’s payment was not the product of unreasonable delay. Rather, it was attributable to two things: (1) Germantown’s decision to exercise it s con tractual rights to investigate the claim and require a sworn statement/testimony before providing
coverage ; and (2) Wolter’s own actions

. ¶ 13 Germantown’s decision to exercise its contractual rights was contractually justified

. The cause of the July 21, 2020 fire was unknown , and one
local official suspected that it might have been of incendiary origin . If that suspicion proved correct, there would be no coverage under the policy . Thus, it

was reasonable for Germantown to take the actions that it did

. Wolter acknowledged as much during the EUO.

¶ 14 As for Wolter’s own actions , he could have submitted a sworn statement in proof of loss shortly after receipt of the August 26, 2020 letter from Gostomski’s attorney. Instead, he waited nearly two months to do so. Likewise,
Wolter could have participated in the EUO scheduled for November 11, 2020. Instead, he asked that it be rescheduled for three weeks later. Such actions undoubtedly contribut ed to the delay in Germantown’s payment.

¶ 15 B ased on the foregoing , we are satisfied that there was no breach of

contract and that Germantown was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Altho ugh Wolter now suggests that t he reasonablen ess of delay is a question best left to a jury, his suggestion is undermined by his competing motion for summaryNo. 20 22AP 401

6 judgment, which the circuit court rejected. In any event , on this record, we perceive no basis to disturb the court’s decision

. 7

By the Cou rt.

— Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

7 At the conclusion of his brief , Wolter attempts to revive his dismissed statutory intere st claim by noting that he was not paid within thirty days as required by W IS

. S TAT

. § 628.46. We reject this argument. Germantown’s ability to confirm coverage was dependent on its contractually allowed investigation. T hat investigation concluded at th e earliest on December 3, 2020, when the EUO occurred. Wolter was paid within thirty days of that date.