Drinkwater v. American Family Mutual Insurance
2006 WI 56, 714 N.W.2d 568, 290 Wis. 2d 642 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Wisconsin's made-whole doctrine, a fundamental public policy, can override a contractual choice-of-law provision in an insurance agreement when applying choice-of-law principles to a subrogation claim stemming from a tort occurring in Wisconsin involving Wisconsin residents.
Facts:
- Shane Drinkwater, a Wisconsin resident, worked at a company located in Iowa.
- In September 2002, Drinkwater sustained severe leg injuries when another motor vehicle struck his motorcycle in Wisconsin.
- The driver of the other vehicle was also a Wisconsin resident and was covered under an insurance policy issued by a Wisconsin insurance company; both vehicles were registered in Wisconsin.
- Medical Associates Health Plan, an Iowa non-profit corporation, paid Drinkwater's health care expenses through a group health insurance contract issued to Drinkwater's employer in Iowa.
- The Plan contract contained a clause providing that it "shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa" and included a subrogation clause.
- The other driver's negligence was conceded, and their insurer paid its policy limit of $250,000.
- A circuit court later calculated Drinkwater's total damages for the accident to be $424,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Drinkwater commenced an action for personal injuries, naming the other driver and the driver's insurer as defendants, and naming Medical Associates Health Plan as a potentially subrogated party in a Wisconsin circuit court.
- The Plan counterclaimed and cross-claimed, alleging a subrogated interest in the damages Drinkwater sought.
- The Plan moved the circuit court for a determination of its subrogation rights, requesting a decision on whether Wisconsin's made-whole doctrine could be overturned and whether Drinkwater was made whole.
- The circuit court determined that Wisconsin law applied, conducted a 'made-whole' hearing, found Drinkwater's total damages were $424,000, and concluded he would not be made whole by the $250,000 proceeds from the tortfeasor's insurance.
- The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Drinkwater, determining he was entitled to the escrowed funds.
- The Plan appealed the circuit court's judgment.
- The court of appeals certified the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.61.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Wisconsin law, including its 'made-whole' doctrine, or Iowa law, which rejects the 'made-whole' doctrine, apply to a health insurance plan's subrogation claim against a Wisconsin resident's recovery for personal injuries sustained in a Wisconsin accident, despite a contractual choice-of-law provision designating Iowa law?
Opinions:
Majority - Ann Walsh Bradley, J.
Yes, Wisconsin law applies to the Plan's subrogation claim against Drinkwater, requiring him to be made whole before the Plan is entitled to recover for medical expenses. The court determined that Wisconsin's deeply rooted made-whole doctrine, based on the equitable nature of subrogation, trumps express contract provisions to the contrary. Although parties may contract for choice of law, this freedom is qualified by important public policies of a state whose law would otherwise be applicable. The court found that this case, involving subrogation against a tort recovery, is not purely a contract case but a hybrid of tort and contract, especially since Drinkwater had no opportunity to bargain over the Plan's terms. Applying Wisconsin's choice-of-law framework, the court weighed five choice-influencing factors: (1) predictability of results (points to Wisconsin law, as the Plan is better able to adjust to varied laws than individual insureds), (2) maintenance of interstate order (neutral, as both states have interests), (3) simplification of the judicial task (points to Wisconsin law, as Iowa law also requires complex mini-trials), (4) advancement of the forum's governmental interests (points strongly to Wisconsin law, which has a strong interest in fully compensating its resident tort victims), and (5) application of the better rule of law (points to Wisconsin law, as Iowa's approach could leave severely injured parties with no net recovery). All factors either favored or were neutral regarding the application of Wisconsin law, leading the court to conclude that Drinkwater must be made whole before the Plan could seek subrogation.
Dissenting - David T. Prosser, J.
No, the contractual provision designating Iowa law should govern the Plan's subrogation claim because the parties explicitly agreed to it. Justice Prosser agrees that the made-whole doctrine is a good policy but emphasizes that other jurisdictions, like Iowa and Illinois, do not recognize it. He argues that respecting the contractual choice-of-law clause promotes predictability in consensual arrangements, which is a crucial choice-influencing factor. The dissent notes that the Plan was an Iowa entity, the employer was in Iowa, and employees could come from multiple states with differing subrogation laws. Applying Wisconsin law here could create inconsistencies for co-workers, potentially impact health care costs for employers, and discourage Wisconsin residents from working for out-of-state companies. He also questioned the significance of some facts relied upon by the majority, such as the tortfeasor's residency. The dissent expresses concern that the majority's decision introduces uncertainty regarding which law will apply in similar future scenarios involving out-of-state residents or accidents occurring outside Wisconsin.
Analysis:
This case significantly reaffirms the robust nature of Wisconsin's made-whole doctrine, establishing it as a fundamental public policy capable of overriding express contractual choice-of-law provisions, particularly where there is unequal bargaining power. It provides a detailed application of Wisconsin's modern choice-of-law framework in the complex intersection of tort and contract law, offering guidance for disputes involving multi-state insurance plans. The decision underscores a state's prerogative to prioritize the protection and full compensation of its residents who are tort victims, even when that conflicts with contractual agreements drafted under different state laws, thereby impacting how out-of-state insurers must navigate state-specific public policies.
