Insurance — CGL policies — employee exclusions

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Insurance — CGL policies — employee exclusions

An employee who was not provided to an employer by any third party is not a temporary worker whose injuries are covered by a standard CGL policy.

“The Smiths assert that ‘there is an ambiguity when the Auto-Owners policy language is read in conjunction with the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Act.’ We reject this argument for two reasons. First, the Smiths have not provided legal support for the proposition that we may declare otherwise unambiguous policy language to be ambiguous based on statutory provisions external to the policy. Second, on its own terms, the Smiths’ comparison is self-defeating. As described by the Smiths, the pertinent Worker’s Compensation Act language distinguishes ‘employees’ from temporary workers who are provided by a help agency. But here, the Smiths ask us to interpret the policy language as distinguishing ‘employee[s]’ from ‘temporary worker[s]’ who are not furnished by anyone. These two propositions are at odds with each other. We stress that we have not independently compared the Worker’s Compensation Act with the policy language. Here, we conclude only that the Smiths’ argument falls of its own weight.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP703 Borntreger v. Smith

Dist. III, Barron County, Doyle, J., Lundsten, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Graham, Thomas J., Jr., Eau Claire; Biegert, Matthew A., New Richmond; For Respondent: Danielson, Steven G., Eau Claire