Bade v. Badger Mutual Insurance

21 Citing cases

  1. Treiber & Straub Inc. v. Stanley Convergent Sec. Sols.

    572 F. Supp. 3d 633 (E.D. Wis. 2021)

    "While the party claiming waiver need not prove an actual intent to waive, it must show that the waiving party โ€˜had at the time knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of his rights or of the facts upon which they depended.โ€™ " Moya v. Walgreen Co. , No. 18-CV-1785-JPS, 2019 WL 400618, at *3 (E.D. Wis. 2019) (quoting Bade v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co. , 31 Wis.2d 38, 142 N.W.2d 218, 222 (1996) ). Thus, intention to waive may "be inferred from the partiesโ€™ conduct."

  2. Moya v. Walgreen Co.

    Case No. 18-CV-1785-JPS (E.D. Wis. Jan. 31, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    While the party claiming waiver need not prove an actual intent to waive, it must show that the waiving party "had at the time knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of his rights or of the facts upon which they depended." Bade v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 142 N.W.2d 218, 222 (Wis. 1966). Intention to waive may, then, be inferred from the parties' conduct.

  3. Nelson v. Transguard Ins. Co. of Am., Inc.

    14-cv-862-bbc (W.D. Wis. Oct. 13, 2015)

    The doctrine of laches represents "a recognition that a party ought not to be heard when he has not asserted his right for an unreasonable length of time or that he was lacking in diligence in discovering and asserting his right in such a manner so as to place the other party at a disadvantage." Bade v. Badger Mutual Ins. Co., 31 Wis.2d 38, 47, 142 N.W.2d 218 (1966). The elements of the equitable doctrine of laches are: (1) unreasonable delay; (2) knowledge of and acquiescence in the course of events; and (3) prejudice to the party asserting laches.

  4. Smart v. Dane County Board of Adjustments

    177 Wis. 2d 445 (Wis. 1993)   Cited 16 times
    Mining may be expanded to contiguous parcel owned by same entity, if excavation operations were in existence on part of the land, and all of the land constituting an integral part of the operation was "in use" when the zoning change occurred

    [A] recognition that a party ought not to be heard when he has not asserted his right for unreasonable length of time or that he was lacking in diligence in discovering and asserting his right in such a manner so as to place the other party at a disadvantage.Bade v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 31 Wis.2d 38, 47, 142 N.W.2d 218 (1966). The elements of laches are: "(1) unreasonable delay, (2) lack of knowledge on the part of the party asserting the defense that the other party would assert the right on which he bases his suit, and (3) prejudice to the party asserting the defense in the event the action is maintained."

  5. Mansfield v. Smith

    277 N.W.2d 740 (Wis. 1979)   Cited 26 times
    Discussing the "mailbox rule," that acceptance of a contract is effective upon mailing, and noting that "[m]ailing is sufficient to satisfy the legal requirements imposed in the day-today conduct of business"

    "The equitable doctrine of laches is a recognition that a party ought not to be heard when he has not asserted his right for unreasonable length of time or that he was lacking in diligence in discovering and asserting his right in such a manner so as to place the other party at a disadvantage." Bade v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 31 Wis.2d 38, 46, 47, 142 N.W.2d 218 (1966). In the present case the seller apparently took the position that any election, either recognizing the breach of contract by retaining as liquidated damages the money paid by the buyer or standing in his contractual rights by bringing a suit to enforce the contract, was premature under the circumstances as he understood them to be, i.e., absent a binding agreement between himself and McFadden. That Smith believed no contract had been created is borne out by the fact that he did not commence an action against McFadden to enforce the agreement.

  6. McDonald v. McDonald

    228 N.W.2d 727 (Wis. 1975)   Cited 6 times
    Suggesting that Wis. Stat. ยง 178.37 applies during the period between dissolution and termination, absent an agreement to the contrary

    She worked very briefly in the office but never saw any of the records and she trusted her brothers to fully implement the wills of her parents and as a result did not push any inquiries. Laches can be a successful defense when the unreasonable delay is caused not by knowing acquiescence but by the lack of diligence in discovering and asserting the right. Bade v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co. (1966), 31 Wis.2d 38, 47, 142 N.W.2d 218. The action of the sisters here under all of the facts and circumstances was not unreasonable. Their failure to discover the actual allocation of the profits until after legal action had been commenced and they had counsel was not lacking in due diligence. It is not the fault of the sisters that a legal action commenced by their brother Chester had several stages and one appeal to pass through before the proper allocation of postdissolution profits could be considered. We therefore find the defense of laches to be without merit.

  7. Joplin v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

    200 N.W.2d 607 (Wis. 1972)   Cited 5 times

    Schneck v. Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. (1963), 18 Wis.2d 566, 119 N.W.2d 342.Bade v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co. (1966), 31 Wis.2d 38, 46, 142 N.W.2d 218.Directed verdict.

  8. Ryder v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    51 Wis. 2d 318 (Wis. 1971)   Cited 15 times

    "The equitable doctrine of laches is a recognition that a party ought not to be heard when he has not asserted his right for unreasonable length of time or that he was lacking in diligence in discovering and asserting his right in such a manner so as to place the other party at a disadvantage." Bade v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co. (1966), 31 Wis.2d 38, 46, 47, 142 N.W.2d 218. No assertion is made that State Farm is estopped to assert a policy defense because it failed to use reasonable diligence in discovering a fraud.

  9. Peil v. Kohnke

    50 Wis. 2d 168 (Wis. 1971)   Cited 18 times
    Involving a sixteen-year-old plaintiff who had not worked prior to the injury

    Haas v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co. (1958), 4 Wis.2d 198, 203, 90 N.W.2d 146."See, e.g., Bade v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co. (1966), 31 Wis.2d 38, 142 N.W.2d 218 (summary judgment). At the trial the trial court framed a single question on the subject of the alleged false representations as follows:

  10. Sipple v. Zimmerman

    159 N.W.2d 706 (Wis. 1968)   Cited 17 times

    "The equitable doctrine of laches is a recognition that a party ought not to be heard when he has not asserted his right for unreasonable length of time or that he was lacking in diligence in discovering and asserting his right in such a manner so as to place the other party at a disadvantage." Bade v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co. (1966), 31 Wis.2d 38, 47, 142 N.W.2d 218. "Moreover, an essential element of the defense of laches is that the delay in the institution of suit has resulted in prejudice to the party asserting such defense.