fund doctrine in Wisconsin

2006OHIC instead insisted that the Fund's motion was brought due to a mistaken assumption that the primary and the umbrella policy provided coverage for the same things, and pointed to a provision in the umbrella policy that excludes entities defined by Wis. Stat. § 655.01 as a "health care provider." Citing Patients Compensation Fund v. Lutheran Hosp. - LaCrosse, Inc., 223 Wis. 2d 439 , 588 N.W.2d 35 (1999), OHIC argued that, in light of the wording of the umbrella policy that health care providers are excluded, Dr. Beauchaine is not covered by the umbrella policy for medical malpractice because

2006OHIC instead insisted that the Fund's motion was brought due to a mistaken assumption that the primary and the umbrella policy provided coverage for the same things, and pointed to a provision in the umbrella policy that excludes entities defined by Wis. Stat. § 655.01 as a "health care provider." Citing Patients Compensation Fund v. Lutheran Hosp. - LaCrosse, Inc., 223 Wis. 2d 439 , 588 N.W.2d 35 (1999), OHIC argued that, in light of the wording of the umbrella policy that health care providers are excluded, Dr. Beauchaine is not covered by the umbrella policy for medical malpractice because

2018We question whether the doctrine is applicable, but, even if it is, we conclude that it does not support reversing the circuit court. ¶ 30 Our supreme court adopted the common fund doctrine in Wisconsin Retired Teachers Ass'n v. Employe Trust Funds Board , 207 Wis. 2d 1 , 558 N.W.2d 83 (1997).

2018We question whether the doctrine is applicable, but, even if it is, we conclude that it does not support reversing the circuit court. ¶ 30 Our supreme court adopted the common fund doctrine in Wisconsin Retired Teachers Ass'n v. Employe Trust Funds Board , 207 Wis. 2d 1 , 558 N.W.2d 83 (1997).

1995Like *1047 the common fund doctrine, the fund doctrine is based "on the equitable concept that an attorney who renders service in creating a trust fund may in equity be allowed compensation out of the whole fund from those who directly benefit from its accumulation." Geline, 48 Wis. 2d at 298 , 179 N.W.2d at 819 .

1995Like *1047 the common fund doctrine, the fund doctrine is based "on the equitable concept that an attorney who renders service in creating a trust fund may in equity be allowed compensation out of the whole fund from those who directly benefit from its accumulation." Geline, 48 Wis. 2d at 298 , 179 N.W.2d at 819 .

2020LLC v. Stafsholt, 2018 WI 21, ¶3 , 380 Wis. 2d 284 , 908 N.W.2d 784 (courts may include attorney fees as part of an equitable remedy in “exceptional cases and for dominating reasons of justice”); Irving v. Sheldon, 249 Wis. 430 , 431 32, 24 N.W.2d 875 (1946) (explaining that a court may, within its equitable authority, award attorney fees and expenses from the estate to those who litigate for the benefit of the estate). 7 addition, the court found that Wayne M. failed to report income he received from the Trust to the IRS, and that this nondisclosure affected claims for child support that were

2020LLC v. Stafsholt, 2018 WI 21, ¶3 , 380 Wis. 2d 284 , 908 N.W.2d 784 (courts may include attorney fees as part of an equitable remedy in “exceptional cases and for dominating reasons of justice”); Irving v. Sheldon, 249 Wis. 430 , 431 32, 24 N.W.2d 875 (1946) (explaining that a court may, within its equitable authority, award attorney fees and expenses from the estate to those who litigate for the benefit of the estate). 7 addition, the court found that Wayne M. failed to report income he received from the Trust to the IRS, and that this nondisclosure affected claims for child support that were

2020LLC v. Stafsholt, 2018 WI 21, ¶3 , 380 Wis. 2d 284 , 908 N.W.2d 784 (courts may include attorney fees as part of an equitable remedy in “exceptional cases and for dominating reasons of justice”); Irving v. Sheldon, 249 Wis. 430 , 431 32, 24 N.W.2d 875 (1946) (explaining that a court may, within its equitable authority, award attorney fees and expenses from the estate to those who litigate for the benefit of the estate). 7 addition, the court found that Wayne M. failed to report income he received from the Trust to the IRS, and that this nondisclosure affected claims for child support that were

2020LLC v. Stafsholt, 2018 WI 21, ¶3 , 380 Wis. 2d 284 , 908 N.W.2d 784 (courts may include attorney fees as part of an equitable remedy in “exceptional cases and for dominating reasons of justice”); Irving v. Sheldon, 249 Wis. 430 , 431 32, 24 N.W.2d 875 (1946) (explaining that a court may, within its equitable authority, award attorney fees and expenses from the estate to those who litigate for the benefit of the estate). 7 addition, the court found that Wayne M. failed to report income he received from the Trust to the IRS, and that this nondisclosure affected claims for child support that were

2018Sprague v. Ticonic Nat'l Bank , 307 U.S. 161 , 59 S.Ct. 777 , 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939).

2018Sprague v. Ticonic Nat'l Bank , 307 U.S. 161 , 59 S.Ct. 777 , 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939).

2006This court will reverse only if it clearly appears that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion and that "the error affected a substantial right of the complaining party and probably affected the result of the trial." Id. ¶ 91 This issue seems to have arisen out of the Fund's motion for declaratory judgment.

2003The Palmertons point to Wal-Mart Stores v. Wells, 213 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2000), to support their claim the common fund doctrine applies.

2003The Palmertons point to Wal-Mart Stores v. Wells, 213 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2000), to support their claim the common fund doctrine applies.

2003Johnson v. Ziegler, 2002 WI App 103, ¶ 18 , 255 Wis. 2d 751 , 648 N.W.2d 480 .

2003Johnson v. Ziegler, 2002 WI App 103, ¶ 18 , 255 Wis. 2d 751 , 648 N.W.2d 480 .

1996Both this court and the court of appeals have in several cases used the expressio unius canon of construction as a guide to interpreting statutes. 8 But in *610 numerous other cases, the court has warned that the expressio unius canon "requires caution in its application." See, e.g., Whitaker v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 368, 374 , 265 N.W.2d 575 (1978).

1996Both this court and the court of appeals have in several cases used the expressio unius canon of construction as a guide to interpreting statutes. 8 But in *610 numerous other cases, the court has warned that the expressio unius canon "requires caution in its application." See, e.g., Whitaker v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 368, 374 , 265 N.W.2d 575 (1978).

1995Boeing Co., 444 U.S. at 478-79 .

1985The Fund’s recovery for contribution is solely dependent upon a finding of causal negligence on the part of Dr. Darr, who is not a party to this action. 10 Continental relies on the derivative nature of the Fund’s claim, citing Loy v. Bunderson, 107 Wis. 2d 400 , 320 N.W.2d 175 (1982), where we held, “An insurer is directly liable to the plaintiff if the underlying conditions of negligence are satisfied although, after commencement of the action, the insured is released or protected by an absolute covenant not to sue.

1985The Fund’s recovery for contribution is solely dependent upon a finding of causal negligence on the part of Dr. Darr, who is not a party to this action. 10 Continental relies on the derivative nature of the Fund’s claim, citing Loy v. Bunderson, 107 Wis. 2d 400 , 320 N.W.2d 175 (1982), where we held, “An insurer is directly liable to the plaintiff if the underlying conditions of negligence are satisfied although, after commencement of the action, the insured is released or protected by an absolute covenant not to sue.