Drinkwater v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
Wisconsin Supreme Court
714 N.W.2d 642 (2006)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Shane Drinkwater (plaintiff) was a Wisconsin resident who worked at a company in Iowa. Drinkwater was severely injured in Wisconsin when another Wisconsin driver hit him. The other driver was insured up to $250,000 by a Wisconsin insurance company. Drinkwater’s medical expenses were paid by Medical Insurance Health Plan, Inc. (the plan) (defendant), an Iowa corporation that had an insurance contract with Drinkwater’s employer. The insurance contract, issued in Iowa, stated that the contract was to be governed by the laws of Iowa. The insurance contract further provided that if a covered member recovered benefits for his or her injuries from a third party, the benefits would be subrogated to the plan. Under Iowa law, the plan was entitled to payment in full for its subrogated expenses before Drinkwater recovered any damages. Wisconsin law was the opposite—Drinkwater would be fully compensated first. Drinkwater sued the driver, the driver’s insurer, and the plan in Wisconsin state court. The plan responded with a subrogation claim. The trial court applied Wisconsin law and found that the driver’s insurance payment of $250,000 should go to Drinkwater and, because it did not fully compensate Drinkwater, he did not need to pay any of the funds to the plan. The plan appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bradley, J.)
Dissent (Prosser, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
