Opinion ID: 2121233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Laches and Equitable Estoppel

Text: [4, 5] ¶ 23. We next review whether the doctrines of laches or equitable estoppel bar the action in this case. Farmers correctly contends that, under the doctrine of laches, if there is unreasonable delay, knowledge of the course of events and acquiescence therein, together with prejudice to the party asserting the defense, a claim is barred. Paterson v. Paterson, 73 Wis. 2d 150, 153, 242 N.W.2d 907 (1976). Farmers bears the burden of showing that it was prejudiced by the delay. Schultz v. Kuerschner, 1 Wis. 2d 509, 516, 85 N.W.2d 500 (1957). Farmers cites generally to the history of this case to support its argument that the doctrine applies. Specifically, it points to the formal pleading filed against the tortfeasors in which the Yocherers identified that their damages exceeded the liability coverage. Farmers asserts that this shows that the Yocherers knew they had a presentable claim for underinsured motorist coverage during this time but did not take action on it. Further, it contends that, because almost 10 years passed between the time of the accident and the filing of the action, there is significant prejudice to them in this case. [6] ¶ 24. We however, agree with the circuit court and the court of appeals that, under the facts of this case, the doctrine does not apply because there is no evidence of unreasonable delay on the part of the Yocherers. During the nine year period, the Yocherers informed Farmers that a claim against it would be taken at some point. Further, Farmers was part of the underlying tort action the entire time. Therefore, we conclude that Farmers failed to meet its burden in showing prejudice. In addition, the Yocherers' decision to proceed with arbitration first, and then, at the conclusion of the arbitration, file an action against Farmers, constituted neither error nor delay. [7-9] ¶ 25. The doctrine of equitable estoppel consists of action or nonaction on the part of the one against whom the estoppel is asserted which induces reliance thereon by another, either in the form of action or nonaction, to his detriment. City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee County, 27 Wis. 2d 53, 66, 133 N.W.2d 393 (1965). Again, Farmers bears the burden of proving each element by clear and convincing evidence. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr. v. DHSS, 186 Wis. 2d 37, 47, 519 N.W.2d 681 (Ct. App. 1994). In short, this doctrine does not apply in this case because Farmers has failed to meet its burden by providing facts to show that it relied upon any actions of the Yocherers to its detriment. We again agree with the circuit court and the court of appeals that this claim is without merit.