DOT states that the claimant has acted in bad faith since the start of the project in 2009, engaging in a pattern of omission, deception and denial, and taking every opportunity to increase the agreed upon purchase price of the train sets, while denying and deflecting its work obligations. DOT believes that this claim is fundamentally false and should be denied.
The Board concludes this claim would be best resolved in a court of law. Therefore, this claim is denied. [Member Hagedorn did not participate and exited closed session prior to deliberations.]
4. Progressive Direct Insurance Co., of Los Angeles, California, claims $1,089.11 for subrogation damage to a motorhome. On June 19, 2013, the claimant’s insured, Carolyn Kappmeyer, had her motorhome parked at a campsite at Merrick State Park. A park maintenance employee passed too close to Ms. Kappmeyer’s motorhome with a riding lawnmower while mowing and scratched the side of the motorhome. The claimant requests reimbursement for the cost of repairing its insured’s motorhome.
DNR recommends denial of this claim. Although it is likely that the damage was caused by a DNR employee as alleged, it is not the owner of the motorhome making this claim but her insurer. DNR points to the fact that the Claims Board has a longstanding history of denying subrogation claims. DNR notes that Ms. Kappmeyer has paid her $250 deductible and has the option of filing a claim for reimbursement of that deductible but that she is not a party to this action. DNR believes that the purpose of the Claims Board is to reimburse those who have suffered damages at the hands of the state and that an insurance company that pays out a claim to its insured has not suffered damages in that respect. DNR believes it has no responsibility to pay claims made on the basis of subrogation and recommends denial of this claim.
Based on its longstanding tradition of denying subrogation claims, the Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
5. Edward Matthews, of Portgage, Wisconsin, claims $3,000.00 for value of photos which he allegedly was forced to throw away by DOC staff. The claimant was transferred from the La Crosse County Jail to Dodge Correctional Institution (DCI) on June 19, 2012. The claimant states that he arrived at DCI with 25 photos of his wife, live-in girlfriend, two daughters (one by each woman), and ultra-sound photos of his daughter by his girlfriend. The claimant states that the photos were studio-quality and varied in size from 3 x 5 to 8 x 10. The claimant alleges that Sgt. Ferdinand, a DCI employee, made derogatory comments about whether the claimant was truly legally married and the fact that he also had a girlfriend. The claimant believes that these comments were racially motivated because he is black and both his wife and girlfriend are white. The claimant states that he was humiliated by Sgt. Ferdinand’s comments. The claimant alleges that Sgt. Ferdinand told him he could not keep the photos of his girlfriend, the ultra-sound photos, and the photos of the baby. The claimant alleges he asked Sgt. Ferdinand why he could not keep the photos and Sgt. Ferdinand replied, “Because I said so.” The claimant was allowed to keep 12 photos of his wife and older daughter. The claimant states that Sgt. Ferdinand forced him to throw away the other photos and did not give him the option to contest the decision or mail the photos out. The claimant also alleges that Sgt. Ferdinand forced him to throw away a $10 phone card and several envelopes.
The claimant later filed a complaint regarding the photographs and other property items. The complaint reviewer found in the claimant’s favor, stating that he should have been allowed to keep the photos because DCI rules allow for possession of 50 photos. However, the claimant was not awarded any monetary damages because the photos had already been thrown away. The claimant alleges that Sgt. Ferdinand lied to the complaint examiner when he said that the claimant had thrown away the photos voluntarily. The claimant alleges that Sgt. Ferdinand also lied when he told the complaint examiner that the claimant said he did not have any envelopes in which to mail out the photos. The claimant points to his property inventory, which clearly indicates he arrived at DCI with envelopes. The claimant states that he is unable to obtain receipts showing the price of the photos but that they were priceless to him.
The claimant requests reimbursement in the amount of $3,000 but is willing to accept $420, as outlined in his claim.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC notes that the claimant is no stranger to the penal system and was undoubtedly aware of prison grievance programs. DOC states that the claimant could have simply asked how to preserve the photos while challenging Sgt. Ferdinand’s decision or asked to mail the photos out in one of the envelopes he brought with him; instead, he chose to throw away the photos. DOC notes that if the claimant had not thrown away the photos, they would have been preserved for 30 days while his complaint was reviewed.
DOC also states that the claimant appears to have lied in his submission to the board. DOC points to the fact that in his inmate complaint, the claimant alleged he had 16 photos, while in his Claims Board claim, he alleges he had 25. DOC does not believe the claimant should be allowed to profit from his lies and that this claim should be denied.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
The Board concludes:
That the following identified claimants are denied:
Talgo, Inc.
Progressive Direct Insurance Co.
Edward Matthews
That payment of the amounts below to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 16.007, Stats: Eisele, Inc.
That payment of the amounts below to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 775.05, Stats: Shomberg
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 16th day of May, 2014.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
GREGORY D. MURRAY
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
BRIAN HAGEDORN
Representative of the Governor
LITHER OLSEN
Senate Finance Committee
PATRICIA STRACHOTA
Assembly Finance Committee
_____________
Referrals and Receipt of Committee Reports Concerning Proposed Administrative Rules
The committee on Government Operations, Public Works, and Telecommunications reports and recommends:
Relating to the use of state buildings and facilities.
hist30741Referred to joint committee for review of Administrative Rules, May 19, 2014. PAUL FARROW
Chairperson
