Best Price Plumbing, Inc. v. Erie Insurance Exchange
2012 WI 44
| Wis. | 2012Background
- Willtrim Group's damaged property is insured by Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie).
- Erie paid repairs via a two-party check to Willtrim and Best Price; payments were sent to Willtrim's address.
- Check bore handwritten endorsements by Willtrim and Best Price; ultimate recipient and endorsement status disputed.
- Jury found a contract existed between Erie and Best Price and that Erie did not breach it; Best Price moved postverdict to change the verdict.
- Circuit court changed the jury answer to breach, relying on a Kenosha Home Telephone rule; court of appeals reversed, and the supreme court granted review.
- Court affirms the court of appeals, holding no reversible error in the jury verdict and that forfeiture of the Kenosha rule occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for postverdict motion | Best Price argues legal determination (Kenosha rule) controls | Erie contends sufficiency/fact-bound review governs | Standard is sufficiency of the evidence unless law governs |
| Application of Kenosha Home Telephone rule | Contract silent on payment place; Kenosha rule applies | Rule not instructed; no basis to apply as a matter of law | Kenosha rule not properly applied; forfeited due to trial objections |
| Waiver/forfeiture of jury instruction objections | Kenosha rule was governing law; errors preserved | No timely objection; instruction-forfeiture applies | Objections forfeited; evaluate under given instructions |
| Whether there was credible evidence Erie breached the contract | Delivery of funds to insured constitutes breach if not delivered to Best Price | Delivery method could satisfy contract; credibility disputed | There was credible evidence supporting verdict that Erie did not breach |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kenosha Home Telephone Co., 158 Wis. 371 (Wis. 1914) (default place-of-payment rule when silent on payment location)
- Weiss v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 197 Wis. 2d 365 (Wis. 1995) (credibility/fact-bound review for postverdict changes; sustain verdict if any credible evidence)
- State v. Shah, 134 Wis. 2d 246 (Wis. 1986) (waiver/forfeiture of objections to instructions; preservation rule)
- Kovalic v. DEC International, Inc., 161 Wis. 2d 863 (Wis. 1991) (misleading instruction; object to preserve challenge; review by appeal limited)
- State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21 (Wis. 2009) (distinguishes forfeiture vs. waiver; context for forfeiture analysis)