Court Opinion

ID: 9662892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:21:16.595842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:43.559399
License: Public Domain

JON E WILCOX, J.
¶ 21. (concurring). I agree with the court's analysis and holding in the present case. I write separately to emphasize that this court's decision should not be viewed as expanding substitution.
¶ 22. Wisconsin Stat. § 801.58 (2001-2002), which governs substitution of judges, makes clear that substitution is to he granted under limited circumstances. Section 801.58(1) includes time limits for requests and further, as noted by this court, "[t]he purpose behind sec. 801.58(3) is to limit substitution requests to 'one per side.'" State ex rel. Carkel, Inc. v. Circuit Court for Lincoln County, 141 Wis. 2d 257, 265, 414 N.W.2d 640 (1987). Under §801.58(3), "parties united in interest and pleading together shall be considered as a single party."
¶ 23. This court's decision interprets "united in interest" under the circumstances presented and appropriately holds that because Continental Insurance Company and Cincinnati Insurance Company provided different types of policies during different periods of time, the companies were each entitled to request substitution. It is the particular circumstances presented that make substitution appropriate. As discussed by the court, in contrast to the facts presented in Carkel, we find in the present case that the companies have directly adverse interests based on the different types of coverage and periods of coverage provided by each carrier. Majority op., ¶ 18. In ¶¶ 16-17, the court notes that the parties have some common interests, but finds that these interests are insufficient because the *112parties would be oppositely affected by the court's determination of when the damages occurred.
¶ 24. Courts should be wary of cases in which the different interests alleged may be merely facial. It is rare for parties to share exactly the same interests in an action. Based on the language of this case, parties may attempt to emphasize their differences in order to get additional substitutions. Today's decision should be read to mean that courts facing multiple substitution requests in the same case should carefully examine the facts and circumstances to determine whether parties are, in fact, united in interest, or have directly adverse interests that require allowance for multiple substitutions. The rule has been, and remains, "one per side."