A recent decision by a Wisconsin appellate court has overturned the dismissal of a negligence lawsuit, restoring the plaintiff’s opportunity to pursue her claims against an insurance company and related parties. The ruling comes after a circuit court had previously dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and imposed thousands of dollars in attorney fees, costs, and sanctions on the plaintiff.
According to documents filed on April 22, 2026, Zorina K. Reed appealed a judgment from Kenosha County Circuit Court that had dismissed her action against Sentry Select Insurance Company, Cargotrans International Corp., and Dimitrov S. Dimitar. The appeal was heard by Judges Gundrum, Grogan, and Lazar.
The dispute began with an automobile accident involving Reed on July 25, 2019. On September 22, 2021, Reed initiated a negligence lawsuit through her attorney against Sentry Select Insurance Company and other defendants based on that incident. The defendants denied the allegations in their response.
Court records show that discovery issues arose soon after litigation commenced. On December 1, 2021, Sentry served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on Reed. When Reed failed to respond, Sentry moved to compel discovery responses in May 2022 but withdrew its motion after receiving answers from Reed.
In September 2022, Attorney JoAnne Krabbe withdrew as Reed’s counsel with court approval. Proceeding without legal representation (pro se), Reed informed the court she intended to retain new counsel. Despite efforts to schedule depositions and hearings over subsequent months—including multiple attempts by both sides—Reed missed two scheduled depositions in December 2022 and February 2023.
Reed explained her absences were due to discomfort appearing without legal counsel and ongoing efforts to secure representation. In March 2023, Attorney Christopher Strohbehn appeared as new counsel for Reed but later withdrew in August of that year.
The circuit court initially denied Sentry’s motion to dismiss but ordered Sentry to submit an itemized list of costs incurred due to missed depositions so both parties could attempt resolution or return for further argument if necessary. By August 29, 2023, Sentry reported total requested sanctions of $3,909.05 related to deposition attempts; no response was received from Reed regarding this demand.
After changes in judicial assignment due to retirement and reappointment within the circuit court bench—culminating with Judge Frank Gagliardi presiding—Reed complied with several outstanding requirements including sitting for her deposition and providing medical authorizations by May 2024. However, when ordered by the court to attend an independent medical examination (IME) by July 15, 2024, she arrived late due to traffic delays caused by an accident on the highway; as a result, the appointment was canceled.
Sentry renewed its motion for dismissal or alternative relief based on these delays and alleged refusal by Reed to sign additional medical authorization forms needed for defense preparation. In response filed August 28, 2024, Reed argued she had signed required authorizations earlier in March and attributed lateness at her IME appointment both to short-notice schedule changes communicated by Sentry and unforeseen traffic conditions.
Despite mediation efforts between parties failing in mid-September 2024—and continued disagreement over whether additional medical authorizations were too invasive—the circuit court under Judge Heather Iverson dismissed Reed’s lawsuit with prejudice on September 26, citing “a persistent pattern of conduct” that impeded progress: “Ms. [Reed]’s conduct throughout this litigation has been egregious… Her actions and inactions have not only delayed proceedings but have also substantially prejudiced Defendant’s ability to investigate and defend against these claims.” The order also imposed $3,909.05 in sanctions for missed depositions plus $6,911.50 for missing the IME appointment.
On appeal however, Judges Gundrum, Grogan, and Lazar found that the circuit court made errors both factually and legally when attributing certain delays directly to Reed rather than her former attorneys without specific findings: “Because Reed was represented by counsel for this event [untimely discovery responses], the court was required to make specific factual determinations before imputing counsel’s conduct onto Reed… The court made no such findings.”
The appellate opinion further noted that while monetary sanctions were discussed at prior hearings they had not actually been imposed until dismissal occurred; thus it was incorrect for the lower court judge to assume prior financial penalties had failed as deterrents: “The court never actually imposed $3,909.05 in sanctions… This is a factual error.”
Additionally regarding late arrival at IME appointments or refusal of additional medical authorizations deemed ‘too invasive,’ appellate judges determined there was insufficient explanation from the lower bench about why plaintiff’s explanations did not constitute clear or justifiable excuses under applicable law: “The Record reflects…the court made no findings as to why Reed’s explanations…were inadequate.”
As a result of these errors—improperly attributing attorney actions without requisite findings; mischaracterizing sanction history; failing adequately assess proffered excuses—the appellate panel reversed dismissal of Reed’s case: “We therefore reverse judgment dismissing Reed’s case…we also vacate award of monetary sanctions costs fees…remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Attorney names referenced include JoAnne Krabbe (former counsel) and Christopher Strohbehn (subsequent counsel). Judges explicitly named are Frank Gagliardi (circuit) and Heather R. Iverson (circuit). The appellate case number is No. 2024AP2132.
Source: 2024AP2132_Reed_v_Sentry_Select_Insurance_Company_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
