Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

99-1329 Taylor v. Greatway Insurance Co., et al.

By: dmc-admin//July 9, 2001//

99-1329 Taylor v. Greatway Insurance Co., et al.

By: dmc-admin//July 9, 2001//

Listen to this article

“The result in the instant case is governed by our decision in Smith v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. … Like the definition of underinsured vehicle in Smith v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., we conclude that the definition of underinsured vehicle in American Family’s policies is unambiguous. 155 Wis. 2d at 811. The definition clearly requires that an underinsured vehicle must have a liability coverage limit less than the limit of Taylor’s UIM coverage. As we did in Smith v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., we apply the plain terms of the unambiguous definition. Id. Hermanson’s liability coverage limit is $50,000. Taylor’s UIM coverage limit in each of her policies issued by American Family is $50,000. Hermanson’s $50,000 liability coverage limit is equal to, not less than, Taylor’s $50,000 UIM coverage limit in each policy. The vehicle driven by Hermanson is not an underinsured vehicle as defined by American Family’s policies. Taylor is therefore not entitled to UIM coverage under her policies with American Family. As a result, we do not address whether the reducing clause in American Family’s policies creates illusory coverage, just as we did ‘not reach the issue regarding to what extent the policy’s reducing clause may affect [the UIM coverage]’ in Smith v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co., 155 Wis. 2d at 814.”

Affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION: Bradley, J. “Reasonable insureds believe that an underinsured motorist endorsement provides coverage when an at-fault driver’s liability insurance cannot fully compensate the insured’s damages. Such a belief is supported by this court’s oft-stated purpose of UIM coverage. Because the relevant provisions of the policies at issue in this case are inconsistent with the stated purpose of UIM coverage and contrary to the reasonable expectations of the insured, I respectfully dissent.”

Crooks, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: David J. Pliner, Madison

For Respondent: James H. Fowler III, Janesville

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests