Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Anderson v. MSI Preferred Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 2005No. 2003AP1880Published

1ConcurrenceAnn Walsh Bradley, J.

¶ 46. {concurring). I agree with the majority that upon remand the circuit court must determine the reasonable cost of collection. I also agree with the majority that the sum of reasonable attorney fees and costs does not necessarily equal the "reasonable costs of collection." I write separately, however, to provide further context to the majority's contingent fee discussion.

¶ 47. The majority aptly describes the statutory formula under Wis. Stat. § 102.29 for distribution of proceeds from a third-party recovery. Citing Diedrick v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 62 Wis. 2d 759, 766-67,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kolupar v. Wilde Pontiac Cadillac, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Diedrick v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Meyer v. Michigan Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API