Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments on Intermediate Arbitration
Rulings
Oct. 2, 2012 – The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral
argument this week to clarify whether an arbitration panel’s
intermediate rulings can be challenged in circuit court before the panel
renders a final judgment, a question of first impression in
Wisconsin.
IDS
Property Casualty Insurance Co. disputed coverage under an uninsured
motorist claim by Mary Marlowe, who was involved in an accident with an
uninsured motorist. The parties agreed to arbitrate, and IDS requested
medical records and an independent medical examination. Marlow refused
to comply, arguing that discovery in arbitration is limited to
depositions.
IDS argues that Wisconsin’s statutes governing discovery in civil
litigation apply to allow its requested discovery because the
arbitration agreement specifically states that the “local rules of
law as to procedure and evidence will apply” to disputes between
the parties.
An arbitration panel concluded that discovery was not limited to
depositions because the parties agreed to allow discovery under the
local laws of procedure and evidence.
In circuit court, IDS argued that the arbitration panel, not the
circuit court, has authority to determine the scope of discovery, and
moved the circuit court to compel arbitration. The circuit court denied
IDS’s request and declared that its discovery request was limited
to depositions.
The appeals
court reversed, ruling that Marlowe could not challenge the
arbitration panel’s discovery ruling by seeking a declaratory
judgment until the panel rendered a final award. However, it noted that
the question is one of first impression in Wisconsin.
It is expected that a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court will
further clarify the holding of Borst v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2006
WI 70, 291 Wis. 2d 361, 717 N.W.2d 42, in which the court explained that
parties should explicitly address discovery in arbitration agreements or
reference established alternative dispute resolution rules that address
how discovery should be handled.
Other Cases Scheduled for Oral Argument This Month
In State v. Lemoine, 2010AP2597-CR, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court will consider whether a defendant’s
statements to police were voluntary and properly admitted, or if the
admission of involuntary statements not properly admitted was harmless
error.
In State v. Avery, 2010AP1952, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court will examine whether new evidence from digitally enhanced
videotape is grounds for a new trial. Brian Avery was convicted on two
counts of armed robbery as a party to a crime. He claims new video
enhancements applied to surveillance video show he was not the true
culprit.
In Bethke v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.,
2010AP3153, the Wisconsin Supreme Court may decide whether the victims
of an auto accident are entitled to underinsured motorist coverage, or
whether the policy legally excluded self-insured vehicles owned by a
rental car company.
In Jamerson v. Dept. of Children &
Families, 2011AP593, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will
review an agency determination that Angela Jamerson was permanently
prohibited from obtaining a group childcare license under
Wisconsin’s new caregiver law for convictions relating to food
stamps and public assistance nearly 20 years prior.
In State v. Novy, 2011AP407-09-CR, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court will examine two interesting questions: 1)
whether the trial court erred in allowing fingerprint evidence to be
admitted in the state’s rebuttal when the court had previously
ruled the evidence was not admissible; 2) whether the defendant was
deprived of the right to an impartial jury because the circuit court
refused to strike a juror who was sleeping during defense
counsel’s closing argument.
In Schinner v. Gundrum, 2011AP564, the
Wisconsin Supreme Court will review whether a homeowner’s
insurance policy covers the 21-year-old host of a drinking party who
provided alcohol to an underage guest who assaulted another guest.
In City of Menasha v. Gracia, 2011AP813-814,
the Wisconsin Supreme Court will examine whether police entry into the
defendant’s bedroom while investigating an incident that led to an
operating while intoxicated conviction was lawful under the community
caretaker doctrine.
