Marotz v. Hallman (2007)

Co., 771 F.3d 1026, 1030 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Marotz v. Hallman, 734 N.W.2d 411, 421 (Wis. 2007)).

Stated another way, by acquiring UIM coverage, an insured purchases “a predetermined, fixed level of UIM recovery that is arrived at by combining payments from all sources.” Marotz, 302 Wis. 2d 428, ¶23 (citation omitted). ¶31 Here, that predetermined, fixed level of UIM recovery was $100,000, which Adele has received by combining payments from all sources— i.e., the two $50,000 liability limits she received from Progressive, the liability insurance for both of the tortfeaso…

The Town notes that exercising the discretion to review a forfeited issue may be appropriate “[w]hen an issue involves a question of law rather than of fact, when the question of law has been briefed by both parties and when the question of law is of sufficient public interest to merit a decision.” See Marotz, 302 Wis. 2d 428, ¶16 (quoted source omitted; alteration in Marotz).

“Toward that end, courts give the common, ordinary meaning to the policy language (i.e., what the reasonable person in the insured’s position would understand them to mean).” Marotz, at ¶ 34, 302 Wis.2d 428 , 734 N.W.2d 411 .

We do not reach decisions based on hypothetical facts.” Smith, 155 Wis. 2d at 813–14 (holding underinsured motorist cover- age did not apply under language of policy, despite insured’s reliance on “certain hypothetical situations”); see also Marotz, 302 Wis. 2d 428, ¶21 (“Because every possible scenario cannot be anticipated by the words selected by the legislature, an un- ambiguous statute in one context may be ambiguous in an- other.”); Scott v. American Standard Ins.

See Marotz v. Hallman, 302 Wis.2d 428 , 734 N.W.2d 411, 421 (2007).

See Marotz v. Hallman, 2007 WI 89, ¶ 16 , 302 Wis. 2d 428 , 734 N.W.2d 411 .

See Marotz v. Hallman, 2007 WI 89, ¶16 , 302 Wis. 2d 428 , 734 N.W.2d 411 (“As a general rule, ‘issues not raised in the circuit court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.’” (citation omitted)); see also A.O.

See Marotz v. Hallman , 2007 WI 89 , ¶39, 302 Wis. 2d 428 , 734 N.W.2d 411 ("For inconsistencies to alter the construction of an otherwise unambiguous provision, the inconsistencies must be 'material to the issue in dispute....' " (quoted source omitted)). ¶18 In sum, the terms of the contract clearly and unambiguously set out the services performed by J.C.

See State v. Jensen , 2010 WI 38 , ¶29, 324 Wis.2d 586 , 782 N.W.2d 415 (quoting Marotz v. Hallman , 2007 WI 89 , ¶25, 302 Wis.2d 428 , 734 N.W.2d 411 ); see also Adams v. Northland Equip.

See Marotz v. Hallman, 2007 WI 89, ¶ 15 , 302 Wis. 2d 428 , 734 N.W.2d 411 . ¶ 13.

See Marotz v. Hallman, 2007 WI 89 , 302 Wis. 2d 428 , 734 N.W.2d 411 ; see also State Farm Mut.

See id. ¶26 Third, the forfeited issues in this case are not of sufficient public interest to merit a decision.

See Marotz v. Hallman, 734 N.W.2d 411, 418 (Wis. 2007) (citing Janssen v. State Farm Mut.

See Marotz v. Hallman, 734 N.W.2d 411, 418 (Wis. 2007) (citing Janssen v. State Farm Mut.