Jeffrey Nichols and Micaela Haggenjos recently obtained a favorable result from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirming an underlying decision granting summary judgment in a slip and fall case. We represented a bowling alley’s insurer. At issue was whether the circuit court properly granted our motion for summary judgment arguing that because the bowling alley was last remodeled in 2003, any theories of recovery based on the settee’s alleged design defects were barred by the builder’s statute of repose. The bowling alley further argued that, as a matter of law, the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s additional theories of liability. The Court of Appeals agreed with our position and affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant our motion for summary judgment.
Authors: Jeffrey T. Nichols, Micaela E. Haggenjos
Jeffrey Nichols and Micaela Haggenjos recently obtained a favorable result from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirming an underlying decision granting summary judgment in a slip and fall case. We represented a bowling alley’s insurer. At issue was whether the circuit court properly granted our motion for summary judgment arguing that because the bowling alley was last remodeled in 2003, any theories of recovery based on the settee’s alleged design defects were barred by the builder’s statute of repose. The bowling alley further argued that, as a matter of law, the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s additional theories of liability. The Court of Appeals agreed with our position and affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant our motion for summary judgment.