James Weiss, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent-Petitioner v. United Fire & Casualty Company…

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an insured need not introduce expert testimony in every bad faith tort claim; expert testimony is required only when the insurer's alleged breach involves unusually complex or esoteric issues beyond the common knowledge and ordinary experience of an average juror, and Heyden v. Safeco Title Ins. Co. was overruled to the extent it imposed a categorical requirement. The court further held that credible evidence of United Fire's flawed arson investigation — including its investigator's removal and concealment of electrical evidence — supported the jury's bad faith verdict, making the circuit court's dismissal clearly wrong. Finally, the court upheld the $225,000 punitive damages award, construing the jury's single damages answer as including compensatory damages on the tort and finding credible evidence of outrageous conduct. The part of the court of appeals decision before the court was reversed and the cause remanded to reinstate the jury verdict.