Wisconsin
Wisconsin dispute over hail damage claim headed to court
Dispute over hail damage claim headed to court
A dispute over a hail damage claim prompted one family to write to Contact 6. Months later, their case is headed to court.
JACKSON, Wis. – A dispute over a hail damage claim prompted one family to write to Contact 6. Months later, their case is headed to court.
Their attorney is arguing their damage should have been covered by insurance.
Even since the clouds rolled in and the hail beat down, Nicole Maziasz has been riding out the storm with State Farm Insurance.
“Every time I hear, “like a good neighbor,” I think, I would not like neighbors like that,” said Maziasz.
On April 19, 2023, a hailstorm blew through Washington County. In Jackson, Maziasz went out to survey the damage.
“We saw our back patio just peppered with granules,” said Maziasz.
The granules were from her roof’s shingles. Her trusted contractor confirmed hail damage to her roof. A State Farm adjuster who visited the house agreed there was hail damage.
The State Farm adjuster didn’t walk the back half of the roof because he said it was too steep. State Farm sent out a second adjuster who came to a different conclusion about their roof.
“He came down and said there was no damage,” said Maziasz.
SIGN UP TODAY: Get daily headlines, breaking news emails from FOX6 News
Contact first spoke with Masiasz and her husband in January. They said that State Farm was low-balling their roof damage claim. They have a $31,000 estimate for hail damage repair from one company. Maziasz says State Farm found just $700 in damage.
At the time, State Farm told Contact 6 it “seeks to provide our customers all benefits to which they are entitled within the terms of the insurance policy.”
“They just dug in their heels,” said Maziasz.
After Contact 6’s report aired, Maziasz heard from other people having similar experiences with State Farm. One of them had a lawyer. Maziasz called him.
“He said “you definitely have a case,” said Maziasz.
Ryan Graff is a founding partner at MGW Law in Manitowoc. He’s also a former insurance defense lawyer.
“One of my biggest clients was, you guessed it, State Farm,” Graff told Contact 6.
Graff says he left that job to represent policyholders. Graff says a disproportionate number of his cases are against State Far.
“Since 2020, I have sued State Farm over residential roof claims over 50 times. Probably closer to 75,” said Graff. “All other carriers combined wouldn’t equal that number.”
FREE DOWNLOAD: Get breaking news alerts in the FOX6 News app for iOS or Android
Graff filed a civil suit against State Farm in Washington County on behalf of the Maziasz family. It accuses State Farm of breach of contract and bad faith.
The suit argues a disconnect between what State Farm’s policy says it covers for hail damage and how it trains its staff to identify it. The suit says that State Farm is “wrongfully and improperly using a standard definition of hail damage to asphalt shingles that is not found anywhere in the policy.”
“And, we’re not going to recognize pure granular loss as hail damage covered by the policy,” said Graff. “Some carriers do it infrequently. State Farm does it constantly.”
Graff says it’s an argument that’s helped him win cases before.
“There is this macro trend in insurance. They’re covering less,” said Graff.
Graff is also representing Don and Donia Groves in a civil suit against State Farm. The Groves told Contact 6 in January that their roof was damaged by the same April 19 storm in Hartford. Multiple contractors gave the Groves damage estimates about $20,000 or higher. State Farm sent the Groves a check for $6,087, but later increased the amount to $9,860.
In response to the Maziasz lawsuit, a State Farm spokesperson told Contact 6:
“State Farm is focused on being there for all our customers and is committed to paying what we owe. We’re prepared to share the facts and bring clarity and context to this matter. Since the matter is now in litigation, the appropriate place to do that is in a court of law.”
The Maziasz family says it paid about $30,000 for a new roof. Then, they switched insurance providers. When Maziasz handed over her case to Graff, you could say, the clouds parted.
“It was a huge relief because I spent so much time over the course of that year. It was just like, “your turn,” said Maziasz.
Maziasz’s case is still in the discovery phase. If a judge decides that granular loss was covered by her policy, her case would go to a jury to decide whether there was granular loss.
Graff says many of his cases result in settlements.
Wisconsin
President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody
A federal judge has ordered the release of the president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque, after finding that immigration officials probably detained him in retaliation against his public advocacy for Palestinian rights, suppressing his first amendment rights in the process.
The US district judge James Patrick Hanlon’s order on Thursday marked a sharp rebuke against Trump officials, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who had tried to paint Salah Sarsour as a national security threat.
“Salah Sarsour, who has lived in this country for more than three decades and served as a core pillar in his community without any issues, should never have been detained in the first place,” his legal team wrote in a statement. “While we continue to fight these baseless claims in court, today is about celebrating a family being reunited. It is also a sober reminder that, if the government can target Mr Sarsour, everyone’s free speech rights are at risk.”
Sarsour describes himself as a stateless Palestinian, according to the order. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that he is a Jordanian citizen. He has lived in the United States for more than three decades, becoming a legal permanent resident in 1998. Immigration officials approved Sarsour’s citizenship application decades ago, though he did not naturalize.
Sarsour has garnered public attention as a champion for Palestinian rights, and serves as a board member of an advocacy group called American Muslims for Palestine.
But Rubio personally signed off on a memo to the DHS last year describing Sarsour as deportable despite his green card, because “his actions undermine US foreign policy to combat antisemitism around the world”. The memo, cited in Hanlon’s order, accuses Sarsour’s group of being “found to have been involved in activities providing funds to Hamas”.
A group of plainclothes ICE officers from at least 10 unmarked vehicles swarmed Sarsour on 30 March of this year, arresting him and putting him in deportation proceedings. ICE ultimately detained him in Clay county jail in Indiana.
Sarsour lost 30lb while detained, the order says. His lawyers told the court that he was “at constant risk of developing serious complications from diabetes given that the medical staff only checks his blood-sugar levels once a month”. Tightly controlling diabetes typically requires multiple glucose checks daily.
Hanlon’s order says that homeland security officials and Rubio probably trampled on Sarsour’s first amendment right to free speech and appeared to have arrested him in retaliation for his Palestinian rights advocacy.
The order cited a New York Times story and the website for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative thinktank that dreamed up Project 2025,
The Heritage Foundation presented the White House with the idea to present prominent foreign-born Muslims and Palestinian rights leaders as terrorists in order to sue them, deport them or pressure employers to fire them, the order says, citing reporting from the Times and Heritage’s own website. Sarsour was probably among the targets of that campaign, the order says.
The federal government, through its lawyers, contended that Sarsour should be deported based on two convictions from more than three decades ago in Israel – one for throwing a molotov cocktail and the other for attempting to store weapons and ammunition.
Sarsour denies having committed those crimes.
But Hanlon viewed those crimes as a non-issue for justifying his incarceration, noting that the federal government knew about them since the 1990s and approved his legal permanent residency and his citizenship application anyway.
Sarsour’s speech on Palestinian rights “is core political speech and squarely within the scope of the First Amendment”, the order says. “Mr Sarsour has submitted evidence allowing a reasonable inference that his protected speech was ‘at least a motivating factor’ in Respondents’ decision to detain him.”
A spokesperson for homeland security described Sarsour as a “terrorist”, citing the convictions from his youth in Israel.
Government lawyers had argued that Sarsour did not have the same first amendment rights as US citizens. If he were released, they said, he should have to pay a $25,000 bond, wear an ankle monitor, check in routinely with ICE and remain confined to his house.
Instead, Hanlon ordered his release on personal recognizance, meaning that Sarsour does not have to pay a cash bond to compel him to show up in court again. The order, however, requires him to remain in the state of Wisconsin.
Wisconsin
Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute
(WLUK) – A couple challenging the decision not to award them a 50-50 raffle prize at a Milwaukee Brewers game asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case, calling it one of “statewide importance.”
Matthew and Annette Flynn purchased ten raffle tickets at the July 7, 2023, game, and held the winning number which was originally selected for $13,000. According to court records, the raffle rules in effect at the time required the winning ticket holder to claim the prize at a designated 50-50 table by the end of the top of the seventh inning. Flynn said she did not see the winning number displayed or hear it announced and was directed by stadium personnel to another location before making her way to the claim table. Officials determined she did not arrive before the deadline and selected a new winning ticket.
The Flynns sued, but the circuit and appeals courts ruled the raffle’s rules gave the foundation sole discretion to determine the official winner and that the rules clearly stated a participant who failed to claim the prize within the specified time would be disqualified.
In a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed Wednesday, the Flynn’s asked the high court to take the case, saying the decision “affects not only the parties to this action but potentially every Wisconsin resident who participates in charitable raffles and similar gaming activities.”
“This case presents significant questions concerning contractual discretion, discovery, judicial review of charitable gaming decisions, and the treatment of digital evidence within Wisconsin’s appellate system. For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,” the petition states.
The high court does not have to take the case. At some point, it will vote on if to take it. If it does, a months-long process to review the issues will begin. If it does not, the appeals court ruling would stand.
According to the rules posted on the Milwaukee Brewers’ website, the deadline to claim the prize is no longer during the game the tickets were purchased.
BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT
“The Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number may claim the Prize at the 50/50 Table located on the Loge (2nd) level concourse behind Sections 216/217 until such time as the Ballpark officially closes to fans after the end of the game. If the Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number does not claim the Prize by the time the Ballpark closes to fans after the end of the game, that Participant may still claim the Prize within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period for the respective baseball game by contacting the Raffle hotline (414-902-4334). A Prize that is not claimed within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period will be awarded in compliance with applicable regulations,” the site states.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin DOJ probes fatal shooting by Oneida County officer
ONEIDA COUNTY, Wis. (WFRV) — The Wisconsin DOJ is investigating an officer-involved death that occurred on the morning of June 17 in the town of Lake Tomahawk.
According to a press release, around 10:30 a.m., two Oneida officers arrived at Lumen Lake Drive to arrest a subject in a felony investigation.
Upon contact with the officers, the subject brandished and shot a firearm. One officer shot the subject in return.
EMS pronounced the subject dead on the scene. No members of law enforcement or the public were injured.
Both officers will be placed on administrative assignment, per the agency’s policy.
WFRV will update this story as needed.
-
Atlanta, GA2 minutes ago18 essential Atlanta restaurants, from neighborhood gems to MICHELIN-starred destinations
-
Minneapolis, MN10 minutes agoHmong in Minnesota: 50 Years of Resilience
-
Indianapolis, IN13 minutes ago1 critical after shooting on near east side of Indianapolis
-
Pittsburg, PA18 minutes agoSportsNet Pittsburgh parts ways with Penguins rinkside reporter Hailey Hunter after three seasons
-
Augusta, GA25 minutes agoProgress continues on James Brown Linear Park in downtown Augusta
-
Washington, D.C27 minutes agoVans Warped Tour Day One at RFK Festival Grounds in Washington, DC – Loud Hailer Magazine
-
Cleveland, OH33 minutes agoViolent crime crackdown leads to 11 felony arrests and gets eight guns off Cleveland’s streets
-
Austin, TX40 minutes ago
7 Juneteenth celebrations happening in Austin this weekend