Skip to Search
Skip to Main Content
Main Content

Insurance & Reinsurance

Insurance & Reinsurance Overview

  • Overview
  • Attorneys & Professionals
  • Updates, News & Presentations
  • Blog Posts
  • Representative Experience

Godfrey & Kahn's Insurance & Reinsurance Practice Group has long been nationally known as the premier insurance law practice serving insurance companies conducting business in Wisconsin.

We provide litigation and other services to Wisconsin-based, foreign and alien insurance companies, reinsurers and insurance trade associations through our Madison, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Appleton and Green Bay offices.

The firm has worked with insurance companies for over 50 years, helping them address their most difficult complications and claims. Our attorneys maintain their knowledge of the industry and its issues through insurance-related activities, including regular participation and leadership roles in the Defense Research Institute and International Association of Defense Counsel, and the International Association of Insurance Receivers, as well as regular attendance at National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) quarterly meetings. Through this experience, we have have built a solid reputation as a leader in this industry.  

**Listed by A.M. Best Company as Best's Recommended Insurance Attorneys.

Michael Apfeld

Apfeld, Michael B.

Shareholder
Milwaukee
414.287.9500414.287.9500
Dustin Brown

Brown, Dustin B.

Associate
Madison
608.284.2250608.284.2250
Bryan Cahill

Cahill, Bryan J.

Shareholder
Madison
608.284.2227608.284.2227
Amber Coisman

Coisman, Amber C.

Special Counsel
Green Bay
920.436.7677920.436.7677
Donald Daugherty

Daugherty, Donald A.

Shareholder
Milwaukee
414.287.9512414.287.9512
Robert Dreps

Dreps, Robert J.

Of Counsel
Madison
608.284.2606608.284.2606
James Friedman

Friedman, James A.

Shareholder
Madison
608.284.2617608.284.2617
Paul Heaton

Heaton, Paul F.

Shareholder
Milwaukee
414.287.9601414.287.9601
David Konkel

Konkel, David R.

Associate
Milwaukee
414.287.9348414.287.9348
Joseph Nicks

Nicks, Joseph M.

Shareholder
Green Bay
920.436.7675920.436.7675
Linda Schmidt

Schmidt, Linda S.

Special Counsel
Madison
608.284.2211608.284.2211
Todd Smith

Smith, Todd G.

Shareholder
Madison
608.284.2653608.284.2653
Brian Spahn

Spahn, Brian C.

Shareholder
Milwaukee
414.287.9314414.287.9314
Katherine Stadler

Stadler, Katherine

Shareholder
Madison
608.284.2654608.284.2654
Leah Viola

Viola, Leah

Paralegal
Madison
608.284.2255608.284.2255

Godfrey & Kahn Updates

show all

News & Publications

show all

Blog Posts

Wisconsin Court of Appeals: Homeowner’s insurer properly issued loss payments to insuredSeptember 22, 2017Insurable Interests | Bad Faith | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Blog
Blockchain unchained: one lawyer’s quest to figure out what the hell everyone is talking aboutSeptember 07, 2017Insurable Interests | Insurance Industry Developments | Blog
Seventh Circuit: Integrated-system rule does not preclude coverage for homeowners’ claims against window manufacturer August 14, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Construction Defect | Duty to Defend | Blog
Wisconsin Supreme Court clarifies remedy for breach of the duty to defendAugust 02, 2017Insurable Interests | Duty to Defend | Blog
Another appellate court weighs in on class action waiversJuly 25, 2017All In A Day's Work | Insurable Interests | Agents | Class Actions | Labor | Blog
Wisconsin Supreme Court dismisses appeal over parties’ failure to complete a full four corners analysisJuly 10, 2017Insurable Interests | Construction Defect | Duty to Defend | Blog
Effective insurance coverage position letters: A well drafted CPL can assist carrier and policyholder alikeJuly 05, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Construction Defect | Duty to Defend | Blog
One man’s trash: Wisconsin Court of Appeals punts on the Electronic Data Exclusion and reinforces the four corners rule in a case of $1 million videosJune 14, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Cyber Risks & Coverage | Duty to Defend | Blog
U.S. Chamber seeks new federal rule requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangementsJune 06, 2017Insurable Interests | Insurance Industry Developments | Blog
American Law Institute delays action on liability insurance restatementMay 31, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Duty to Defend | Insurance Industry Developments | Regulatory Developments | Blog
Will a new court of appeals decision sow confusion over duty to defend determinations?May 17, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Duty to Defend | Blog
OnRamp Insurance Conference 2017April 10, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Blog
Wisconsin Supreme Court confirms that interpretation of policy language is ordinarily an issue of law for the courtMarch 29, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Blog
The Ninth Circuit holds that business email scam is not covered under standard crime policyMarch 21, 2017Insurable Interests | Cyber Risks & Coverage | Blog
Connecticut Appeals Court decision recognizes the “unavailability of insurance” rule in allocating defense and indemnity for asbestos injury claimsMarch 10, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Duty to Defend | Environmental. Asbestos & Long-Tail Claims | Blog
Wisconsin Court of Appeals considers insurance coverage for allegations of failure to render aidMarch 01, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Blog
Seventh Circuit finds coverage for West Virginia’s nuisance suit against pill distributorFebruary 21, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Duty to Defend | Blog
No insurance on tap for beverage distributor facing tortious interference claimsFebruary 09, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Duty to Defend | Professional Liability | Blog
Business email compromises – covered?February 02, 2017Insurable Interests | Cyber Risks & Coverage | Blog
Policy endorsement that is silent regarding stacking of UIM coverage nonetheless supersedes prior endorsement permitting stackingJanuary 23, 2017Insurable Interests | Bad Faith | Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Coverage (UM/UIM) | Blog
No homeowners liability coverage for insured’s defamatory statements against former colleagueJanuary 16, 2017Insurable Interests | Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) | Duty to Defend | Professional Liability | Blog
Allegations in class action complaint trigger insurance policy’s TCPA exclusion January 04, 2017Insurable Interests | Class Actions | Blog

Representative Experience

The following is a sample of cases in which the firm has represented the insurance industry or insurance interests in past years:

Estate of Sustache v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 87, 751 N.W.2d 845
The Wisconsin Supreme Court applied the "four corners" rule of insurance contract construction, as the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance suggested, and held that American Family had no duty to defend its insureds in the underlying lawsuit claiming battery.

Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, 749 N.W.2d 581
In this case, Godfrey & Kahn attorneys represented two amicus curiae, arguing successfully that a passenger in a car was not jointly and severally liable for a drunk driving accident, even though the passenger had helped to procure alcohol for the minor driver.

Muller v. Society Ins., 2008 WI 50, 309 Wis. 2d 410, 750 N.W.2d 1
Our team successfully argued to the State Supreme Court, on behalf of several amicus curiae, that the "made whole" doctrine should not apply in this subrogation case.

Kontowicz v. American Standard Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 2006 WI 48, 290 Wis. 2d 302, 714 N.W.2d 105
In this case, our team was retained to represent the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance and Civil Trial Counsel of Wisconsin as amicus counsel in a suit involving the proper interpretation of a Wisconsin statute purporting to add interest to claims under liability insurance policies.

Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. Romanshek, 2005 WI 67, 281 Wis. 2d 300, 697 N.W.2d 417
In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted our argument, on behalf of the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, that the phrase "hit-and-run" within the definition of "uninsured motor vehicle" in Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4)(a)2.b. requires physical contact between the insured vehicle and the unknown vehicle.

Gohde v. MSI Insurance Company, 2003 WI 128, 265 Wis. 2d 412, 668 N.W.2d 556
This case involves interpretation of a reducing clause in the uninsured and underinsured coverage of an auto policy. In response to a petition for review filed by our firm, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the petition, summarily vacated the Court of Appeals' decision, and remanded this case to that court for consideration in light of Folkman v. Quamme, 2003 WI 116, decided by the Supreme Court July 16, 2003.

Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 2003 WI 108, 264 Wis. 2d 60, 665 N.W.2d 257
Attorneys from our firm argued on appeal that environmental cleanup costs incurred in response to government suits and regulatory demands were not covered "damages" under general liability insurance policies.

Wistrom v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 2002 WI App 1, 249 Wis. 2d 489, 639 N.W.2d 224 (unpublished opinion)
In a case involving a potentially sensitive issue, our attorneys established that workers' compensation carriers do not violate Wisconsin's medical records privacy laws by communicating with medical and pharmaceutical providers about a patient's care.

Guzman v. St. Francis Hosp., 2001 WI App. 21, 240 Wis. 2d 559, 623 N.W.2d 776
In this appeal, attorneys from our appellate team argued successfully that the legislative cap on the recovery of non-economic damages in medical malpractice actions was constitutional.

Dowhower v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 WI 73, 236 Wis. 2d 113, 613 N.W.2d 557
Our attorneys represented the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, as amicus curiae, in this appeal before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Court accepted the Alliance's position that the statute authorizing reducing clauses in uninsured and underinsured automobile policies does not violate the substantive due process clauses in the state and federal constitutions.

Neiman v. American National Property & Cas. Co., 2000 WI 83, 236 Wis. 2d 411, 613 N.W.2d 160
Our attorneys represented several amicus curiae, including the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance and the Wisconsin Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. We successfully argued that retroactively increasing the damage cap for wrongful death cases violates the due process protections guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.

Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, 2000 WI App 248, 239 Wis. 2d 360, 620 N.W.2d 457
Our attorneys represented the Patients Compensation Fund in this appeal involving the obligations of defense counsel engaged pursuant to Chapter 655, Stats., arguing that defense counsel owed duties to both the Fund, as excess carrier, and to the insurer as well, in medical malpractice actions.

Lee Moua v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 230 Wis. 2d 747, 604 N.W.2d 34 (Ct. App. 1999) (unpublished decision)
In this appeal, we successfully argued that an insurer's practice of settling small claims involving minors without seeking court approval does not constitute actionable misrepresentation under Wisconsin law.

General Casualty of Wisconsin v. Hills, 209 Wis. 2d 167, 561 N.W.2d 718 (1997)
In this appeal, we appeared as amicus counsel on behalf of the Alliance of American Insurers and argued that the "as damages" provision of a general liability insurance policy barred insurance coverage for environmental contamination and government response costs associated with cleanup of a recycling site.

Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund v. St. Mary's Hospital of Milwaukee, 209 Wis. 2d 17, 561 N.W.2d 797 (Ct. App. 1997)
Our firm's lawyers won a $4.8MM judgment for the Patients Compensation Fund after the Fund's claim that a health care provider did not qualify as a statutory self-insurer was upheld on appeal.

Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund v. Wisconsin Health Care Liab. Ins. Plan, 200 Wis. 2d 599, 547 N.W.2d 578 (1996)
In this case, our lawyers argued successfully to the Wisconsin Supreme Court that the Patients Compensation Fund has a claim of contribution against a primary health care liability insurer, relying upon the statutory structure and purpose of the Fund.

Steinberg, et al. v. Jensen, 194 Wis. 2d 439, 534 N.W.2d 361 (1995)
In an appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, we represented the interests of the Patients Compensation Fund and one of its physician-insureds. The case involved an alleged ex parte discovery contact by defense counsel of a plaintiff's treating physicians in connection with a medical malpractice claim. The Fund was able to prevail in the position that no improper discovery tactics and no violation of the physician-patient privilege had occurred.

Leverence v. PFS Corp., 193 Wis. 2d 317, 532 N.W.2d 735 (1995)
In this case involving hundreds of personal injury claims, lawyers from our firm successfully asserted that a trial court's use of a novel technique, known as aggregation, to eliminate a jury trial of individual product liability claims violated the Wisconsin Constitution's jury trial guarantee.

Weiss v. United Fire & Casualty Co.,197 Wis. 2d 365, 541 N.W.2d 753 (1995)
In this case, lawyers in our firm argued as amicus counsel about whether expert testimony was necessary to establish bad faith in a first-party fire insurance claim.

Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Jackson, 190 Wis. 2d 597, 527 N.W.2d 681 (1995)
In this dispute involving a reinsurer and certain underwriters at Lloyds of London, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the circuit court had authority to confirm an arbitrator appointed under a retrocessional reinsurance treaty, allowing selection of a party's arbitrator by that party's opponent. Our lawyers argued successfully that the arbitrator chosen pursuant to the "adverse selection" clause of the treaties was properly appointed and entitled to serve in the arbitration.

Erickson v. Gundersen, 183 Wis. 2d 106, 515 N.W.2d 293 (Ct. App. 1994)
Lawyers from our firm argued that the Patients Compensation Fund had not reached an accord and satisfaction with a health care provider in connection with a medical malpractice claim settlement. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the trial court, finding that an actual settlement agreement existed and should be enforced.

Ready v. Yap, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Appeal No. 91-0152 (Ct. App. 1991)
In this appeal, we aligned as amicus counsel for the State Medical Society, the Wisconsin Hospital Association and the American Medical Association with the Patients Compensation Fund in arguing that the non-economic damage cap contained in Chapter 655, Stats., was constitutional in this case involving a multimillion dollar damage verdict.

Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Smith, 154 Wis. 2d 1999, 453 N.W.2d 856 (1990)
This appeal, argued by our firm's lawyers, involved the reporting and delivery requirements of Wisconsin's unclaimed property law for uncashed workers' compensation claim payments. The Supreme Court determined the treatment and disposition of millions of dollars worth of unclaimed property after considering the insurer's arguments involving statutory construction and constitutional limitations of both Wisconsin's unclaimed property and workers' compensation laws.

Team Leader(s)

Please wait while we gather your results.

Disclaimer and Legal Notices

Copyright © 2016 Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.

Attorneys at Law - All rights reserved.

 

Client Login

 

top