 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Moters v. Barr3/25/2003
. Ronald W. Morters appeals pro se from the order granting the defendants' motion for costs and attorney's fees on the grounds that Morters' claims were frivolous under Wis. Stat. § 814.025(3)(b) (2001-02). Morters also appeals from the judgment awarding $20,000 to the defendants. Morters contends: (1) the trial court erroneously concluded that his claims were frivolous under § 814.025(3)(b); and (2) the trial court erred in its assessment of the costs and fees. We affirm.
I. Background.
. Ronald Morters was involved in a multi-car accident when a driver crossed the center line during a snowstorm and hit his automobile. His wife, Ann, who was following him in a separate automobile, was unable to stop and struck him from behind. Shannon Morters, their granddaughter, was a passenger in Ann's car. All three of the Morters were injured, with Ronald having the most serious injuries.
. The Morters and their granddaughter hired Charles Barr as their attorney to commence lawsuits as a result of the accident. Barr filed suits on behalf of the Morters against the driver who had caused the accident, but before a trial could be held, the parties mediated the case. At the mediation session, the other driver's insurance company offered $575,000 to settle all three cases. In addition, at mediation, the subrogated health insurance carrier agreed to reduce its claim and Barr agreed to reduce his fee so that the offer was equivalent to a $771,000 jury verdict.
. The Morters rejected the offer, dismissed Barr as their attorney, and hired another law firm. The new law firm stipulated to the cases being decided by arbitration. Unhappy with the decision to arbitrate, the Morters fired the new law firm and hired a third attorney to represent them. At the Morters' direction, this new attorney filed a motion to relieve the Morters from the stipulation sending their cases into arbitration, but later they changed their minds again and chose to proceed with the arbitration, resulting in the dismissal of their cases. The arbitrator determined that the Morters were entitled to only $557,384.17.
. Morters and his granddaughter then started legal malpractice suits against Barr, claiming that Barr had a conflict of interest in representing all three Morters; that his actions deprived them of a jury trial; that he was negligent with respect to their worker 's compensation claim; that a delay in filing their personal injury case caused them damage; and that he had failed to demand the policy limits or file a statutory offer to settle. During the pendency of these actions, the trial court consolidated the two Morters' lawsuits. Because the plaintiffs had failed to establish any evidence that their conflict-of-interest or jury-trial claims resulted in any discernable monetary damages, the trial court dismissed those claims. With respect to the claims filed with the insurance company, because the evidence revealed that Barr had properly prepared and presented the Morters' claim to the liability insurance company and the insurance company was willing to pay the policy limits, the trial court dismissed this final claim at the close of the plaintiffs' case.
. Ronald and Shannon Morters then appealed both the order granting partial summary judgment and the later judgment entered in the defendants' favor. The Morters complained that the trial court: (1) erroneously exercised its discretion in consolidating their two cases; (2) erred in granting partial summary judgment; (3) erroneously exercised its discretion in granting a motion in limine; and (4) erred in directing a verdict for the respondents. The respondents filed a motion requesting frivolous costs on appeal. We affirm
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|