Court Opinion

ID: 9660796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:21:08.559394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:22.360941
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(dissenting). I agree with the court of appeals decision, Schulte v. Frazin, 168 Wis. 2d 709, 484 N.W.2d 573 (Ct. App. 1992), which correctly applies this court's holdings in Blue Cross v. Fireman’s Fund, 140 Wis. 2d 544, 411 N.W.2d 133 (1987) and Mutual Service v. American Family, 140 Wis. 2d 555, 410 N.W.2d 582 (1987) to the facts of this case. The majority decision improperly violates the doctrine of stare decisis by rejecting the result and some of the reasoning in Blue Cross and Mutual Service, cases which were unanimously decided by this court only six years ago and upon which the parties to this action were entitled to rely.
For tactical reasons, the plaintiffs settled their claim for less than the defendants' insurance policy *638limits. As the court of appeals stated, "Compcare was notified of a settlement far below the policy limits only after the settlement had occurred." Schulte, 168 Wis. 2d at 717 (citing secs. 655.27, 655.23(4), Stats.). Because the plaintiffs agreed to accept less than the defendants' insurance policy limits, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have not been made whole. As a result, Compcare should be allowed to assert its subro-gation claim against the tort-feasor.
Moreover, contrary to the holding of the majority, the indemnity agreement between the plaintiffs and the tort-feasor should not operate to defeat Compcare's subrogation claim. In Blue Cross, this court stated the following:
Were we to recognize that the existence of an indemnity agreement would bar any claim by a sub-rogated insurer [against the tortfeasor], all [such] subrogation claims could be barred through the use of indemnity agreements, and our recognition of an independent claim in the [subrogated] insurer [against the tortfeasor] would be meaningless. Because such . . . indemnification agreement [s] essentially attempt! ] to circumvent an insurer's subrogation rights by placing the responsibility for the tortfeasor's wrong on the victim, we decline to hold that such agreements impair . . . otherwise valid subrogation right [s].
140 Wis. 2d at 554.
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.