Court Opinion

ID: 9740727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:41:00.830087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:20.018937
License: Public Domain

CANE, P.J.
(iconcurring) I concur with the result, but for a different reason. I would conclude that because Milwaukee Mutual worded its request for Kettner to admit or deny that the value of his claim "does not exceed $100,000” (emphasis supplied), the request was not for a statement or opinion of fact as *646contemplated under sec. 804.11, Stats. It therefore becomes unnecessary to address the issue of whether a request for an admission can be used to establish the value of a case.
The purpose of sec. 804.11 is to provide a procedure for obtaining from a party to the case admissions of fact and other items of proof over which there is no dispute and that can be costly and time-consuming to prove at trial. Asking a party to admit or deny whether his damages exceed $100,000 is not an eviden-tiary "fact” that a party has to prove at trial. All it concludes is that the damages are somewhere between $0 and $100,000. That may be a "fact” in the abstract sense, but certainly not as contemplated under sec. 804.11. Nor would I accept the argument that this was a "fact” because it was important to Milwaukee Mutual in terms of whether their excess coverage would apply. The request was simply too broad. Obviously, the admission could not be offered or accepted to establish any particular evidentiary fact at trial, other than a vague and indefinite conclusion as to a range of damages. As worded, the request was entirely meaningless.