Legal Opinion

Diedrick v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1974No. 103PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.

The twin issues presented are whether the compensation carrier’s attorney’s fee was properly included as a cost of collection of the entire award, and whether the allocation of attorneys’ fees, representing costs of collection, as between plaintiffs’ attorney and the insurer’s attorney was fair and reasonable.

Distribution of 'proceeds.

The trial court approved the settlement and entered its order for distribution of proceeds “under Wis. Stat. Sec. 102.29 (1).” As to distribution of proceeds, that statute provides (relevant portions italicized) as follows:

“102.29 Third party liability. (1) The…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Johnson v. L. D. S. Trucking Co.California Court of Appeal · 1967
  2. Pagel v. KeesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Skornia v. Highway Pavers, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Tadlock v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Gall v. RobertsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Anderson v. MSI Preferred InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Meyer v. Michigan Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2000
  3. Kolberg v. Sullivan Foods, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1994
  4. Zentgraf v. the Hanover Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001
  5. Anderson v. MSI Preferred InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API