Maple Valley Mutual Insurance Must Cover Tony Haase in $17 Million Tanna Togstad Wrongful Death Lawsuit, Judge Rules

Judge Vincent Biskupic ruled on October 1, 2026 that Maple Valley Mutual Insurance Company must provide coverage to Tony Haase in the $17 million wrongful-death lawsuit brought by relatives of Tanna Togstad.

The ruling is about insurance coverage, not liability. Maple Valley has not been ordered to pay $17 million. The judge rejected the insurer’s bid to obtain a ruling that its policies don’t cover the allegations. The civil case is still pending, Haase denies the allegations, and he was acquitted of the criminal charges in August 2025. This is an individual lawsuit with no claim form or public settlement fund.

Quick Facts: Tony Haase, Tanna Togstad and Maple Valley Mutual Insurance

Detail	Information
Deaths	Tanna Togstad and Timothy Mumbrue, March 21, 1992, rural Waupaca County, Wisconsin
Criminal defendant	Tony Garret Haase
Criminal result	Acquitted of two murder charges on August 11, 2025
Civil plaintiffs	Richard Togstad and Veronica Johnson, surviving siblings of Tanna Togstad
Civil defendant	Tony Haase
Insurer	Maple Valley Mutual Insurance Company
Damages sought	$17 million
Judge	Vincent Biskupic
October 1, 2026 ruling	Maple Valley’s motion challenging coverage denied
Main coverage issue	Whether alleged reckless or negligent conduct can be an “accident” under Haase’s homeowners policies
Status	Civil litigation pending
Trial date	None set
Next reported hearing	October 12, 2026
Settlement	None reported
Public claim form	None
Class action	No

The civil case number could not be verified from the public court materials reviewed, so none is published here.

What Did Judge Vincent Biskupic Rule About Maple Valley Mutual’s Coverage of Tony Haase?

Maple Valley had already retained counsel to defend Haase but asked the court to rule that its policies did not cover the allegations. That dispute became important after the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add negligence and recklessness claims.

On October 1, Judge Biskupic rejected the insurer’s argument, concluding that at this stage the amended complaint’s reckless-conduct allegations did not preclude coverage. The ruling does not decide whether Haase caused Togstad’s death or what, if any, damages are owed.

Why Does Recklessness Matter to Tony Haase’s Insurance Coverage in Wisconsin?

Policies often cover accidents but exclude injuries intentionally caused by the insured. When a lawsuit alleges recklessness, the question becomes whether the harm can still count as an accident. Two Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions frame the issue:

• Dostal v. Strand, 2023 WI 7, addressed whether reckless conduct and an accidental result can coexist for coverage purposes. The court looked at the facts and policy language rather than treating a “reckless” label as decisive.
• Loveridge v. Chartier (1991) explained that an intentional-acts exclusion generally applies when the insured acts intentionally and intends harm, including where injury is substantially certain to follow.

That matters here because the amended complaint includes serious intentional-conduct allegations alongside alternative negligence and recklessness theories.

What Did the Togstad Family Allege Against Tony Haase?

The lawsuit concerns the March 21, 1992 deaths of Tanna Togstad and Timothy Mumbrue. The family sought about $17 million in damages. After the amendment, Richard Togstad and Veronica Johnson were named plaintiffs, and the complaint added negligence and recklessness alongside alternative intentional-conduct claims reported as battery, sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Reporting says the family argues the statute of limitations did not start running until Haase was identified through DNA evidence in 2022. Haase denies the allegations, which remain unproven.

Related article: Tekiyah McLeod Pleads Guilty to $477,872 in Medicaid Fraud and Aggravated Identity Theft, What Happens Next

How Did Tony Haase’s Criminal Acquittal Affect the Togstad Civil Lawsuit?

A jury found Haase not guilty of the murder charges in August 2025. That does not end the civil case, which is governed by a lower burden of proof than a criminal trial. In June 2026, Judge Biskupic denied Haase’s bid to dismiss the civil lawsuit and allowed the family to amend the complaint with negligence and recklessness claims.

Does Maple Valley Mutual Have to Pay the $17 Million the Togstad Family Is Seeking?

No, not based on this ruling. It addresses coverage only. It does not award $17 million, find that Haase caused Togstad’s death or set any damages. The $17 million is the family’s demand, not a judgment.

Why Does the Insurance Ruling Matter to the Tony Haase Case?

Coverage can decide whether an insurer must defend and possibly indemnify a defendant for covered liability. Had Maple Valley prevailed, Haase could have faced very different financial and litigation circumstances. Because the underlying merits are still undecided, the ruling does not guarantee any payout.

What Happens Next in the Tony Haase Wrongful Death Lawsuit?

No trial date has been set, and another hearing is scheduled for October 12, 2026. The reported coverage does not say that hearing will decide liability. Discovery and other pretrial proceedings can continue, and the case could end in settlement, further motions or trial.

Is There a Tony Haase Settlement, Claim Form or Way for Other Families to Join?

No. No settlement has been reported, and there is no claim form or class action. The case concerns claims by members of Tanna Togstad’s family. A person with an unrelated wrongful-death claim does not become a plaintiff because of the coverage ruling. For background, see What Is A Wrongful Death Lawsuit? What You Must Know Before Filing and our related insurance coverage, Insurer Bad Faith Is Not Limited to Claim Denials- Georgia Court of Appeals Affirms $12 Million Verdict for Reputational Harm to Healthcare Provider.

Key Dates in the Tony Haase and Tanna Togstad Case

Date	Event
March 21, 1992	Tanna Togstad and Timothy Mumbrue killed in rural Waupaca County
2022	Haase identified as a suspect through DNA evidence, per reporting
August 11, 2025	Jury acquitted Haase of the two murder charges
August 2025	Togstad family filed the wrongful-death lawsuit seeking $17 million
February 11, 2026	Court ruled the civil case could move forward despite the insurance-coverage dispute
June 2026	Court denied Haase’s dismissal bid and allowed amended claims; amended complaint named Richard Togstad and Veronica Johnson
October 1, 2026	Judge Biskupic denied Maple Valley Mutual’s motion challenging coverage
October 12, 2026	Next hearing scheduled

Frequently Asked Questions About the Tony Haase Maple Valley Insurance Ruling

Why must Maple Valley Mutual Insurance Company cover Tony Haase?

Judge Biskupic rejected the insurer’s bid to avoid coverage, concluding that the amended complaint’s reckless-conduct allegations did not preclude coverage at this stage under Wisconsin law.

Did Maple Valley Mutual agree to pay $17 million?

No. The ruling concerns coverage, not an award of damages.

Was Tony Haase convicted of killing Tanna Togstad?

No. A jury acquitted him of the murder charges in August 2025.

Can Tanna Togstad’s family still sue Tony Haase after his acquittal?

Yes. The civil case continued, and the judge denied Haase’s attempt to dismiss it.

How much is the Togstad family seeking?

$17 million in damages.

Does the ruling prove Tony Haase killed Tanna Togstad?

No. That remains disputed in the underlying civil case.

Is there a Tony Haase settlement or claim form?

No settlement has been reported as of October 3, 2026, and there is no claims process.

What is the current status of the Tony Haase lawsuit?

Pending, with no trial date set and a hearing scheduled for October 12, 2026.

Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Allegations in a civil complaint are not findings of fact or liability, and the case may change as new rulings are issued. Consult a licensed Wisconsin attorney about your situation.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the WTAQ report on the October 1, 2026 coverage ruling, the WBAY and WEAU June 2026 reports on the dismissal ruling and amended complaint, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions in Dostal v. Strand (2023 WI 7) and Loveridge v. Chartier (1991), as of October 3, 2026. Last Updated: October 3, 2026.