On Wednesday, March 31, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a ruling in Jeré Fabick v. Tony Evers, holding 4-3 that the governor cannot issue successive emergency declarations on the same subject. Petitioner Jeré Fabick sought a declaratory judgement on Governor Tony Evers’ authority to issue multiple public health emergency declarations related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On Monday, April 5, a three-judge panel from the District IV Court of Appeals ruled against Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and in favor of Governor Tony Evers, his administration, and the media in a case involving information about businesses whose employees have contracted COVID-19.

In Mohns v. BMO Harris Bank, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the circuit court was within its discretion to impose judgement on liability, including for intentional misrepresentation, as a sanction for discovery violations.

In Clark v. League of Wisconsin Municipalities Mutual Insurance Company, the District II Court of Appeals held that a claim may still be able to proceed even though the plaintiff failed to provide formal notice as required by Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1d)(a).

In Great Lakes Excavating v. Dollar Tree Stores, the District I Court of Appeals held that an improperly limited lien waiver that did not comply with Wis. Stat. § 779.05(1) constituted a full waiver of lien rights.

In Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Ropicky, the District II Court of Appeals held that an agent acting on behalf of an insurer to conduct a post-loss claim investigation was not exempt from liability for negligence.

In Gamini v. Quartz Health Benefit Plans Corporation, the District IV Court of Appeals upheld a health insurer’s denial of an insurance claim.

In V&J Employment Services v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the District I Court of Appeals held that a company’s commercial insurance policy, including employee benefits liability coverage, did not provide for defense or indemnification against lawsuits involving wage claims.

In Kennedy v. Gander, the District IV Court of Appeals held that a lawsuit against a nonprovider employee of a health care provider could not proceed because the employer was not a party to the suit.