Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Insurance, 2012 WI 26

Heritage Farms and other landowners suffered extensive forest-fire damage from the 2003 Crystal Lake Fire in Marquette and Waushara Counties.
The jury found the fire was negligently caused by Jeffrey Knaack who ignited and failed to extinguish a burn pile at Lake of the Woods Campground.
Heritage Farms sought double damages and reasonable costs under Wis. Stat. § 26.21(1) plus 12% interest from the verdict date.
The circuit court initially ruled § 26.21(1) did not apply to Markel; it awarded fees but denied double damages and interest from the verdict date.
The court of appeals affirmed; this court reversed in Heritage Farms I, holding § 26.21(1) is not limited to railroad tortfeasors and does not require gross negligence.
On remand, the circuit court again denied mandatory double damages, prompting this decision; the court now holds double damages are mandatory when the fire results from willfulness, malice, or negligence, and addresses interest under § 814.04(4).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 26.21(1) awards double damages as matter of course or discretionary	Heritage Farms: mandatory/did not require discretionary weighing	Markel: discretionary based on conduct	Double damages are mandatory when the fire was caused through negligence, willfulness, or malice.
Whether the mandatory double damages rule should apply prospectively or retroactively	Apply retroactively	Apply prospectively	Rule applies retroactively.
Whether Heritage Farms is entitled to 12% prejudgment interest on double damages from the verdict date and on attorney fees from the award date	Interest should run from verdict for both double damages and fees	Interest on fees from verdict date is inappropriate; constitutional challenges to § 814.04(4) fail	Interest on double damages runs from the verdict date; interest on attorney fees runs from the date of the fee award.
Whether § 814.04(4) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to Markel	Not applicable; argument moot if § 814.04(4) is found unconstitutional	§ 814.04(4) is unconstitutional in some applications	§ 814.04(4) is not unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.

Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co. (Heritage Farms I), 316 Wis. 2d 47 (Wis. 2009) (established § 26.21(1) not limited to railroads and not requiring gross negligence)
Campenni v. Walrath, 180 Wis. 2d 548 (Wis. 1994) (interest on verdict calculated from the first verdict when damages are liquidated)
Nelson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 102 Wis. 2d 159 (Wis. 1981) (prejudgment interest when damages are determinate from verdict)
Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning and context)
State ex rel. Buswell v. Tomah Area Sch. Dist., 301 Wis. 2d 178 (Wis. 2007) (sunburst prospectivity factors for new rules of law)
Hartlaub v. Coachmen Indus., Inc., 143 Wis. 2d 791 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988) (process for evaluating penalties and discretion in damages)