Kenneth C. Burgraff, Sr. v. Menard, Inc.

*83PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J.

¶ 82. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur in the majority opinion's conclusion that Millers First breached its duty to defend by withdrawing its defense prior to exhausting its $100,000 limit of liability.11 also concur in the majority opinion's conclusion that Me-nard's self-insured retention constitutes "other applicable liability insurance" under Millers First's "other insurance clause."9

¶ 83. However, I write in dissent because, contrary to the majority opinion, I conclude that Wisconsin has applied equitable contribution to other shared…