00-2699 Rural Mutual Insurance Co. v. Welsh

Listen to this article

“Rural argues that specific provisions of an insurance contract control over general provisions, a proposition with which, as a general rule of construction, we have no quarrel. However, we cannot agree that, absent an exclusionary reference over to the supplemental coverages (such as exists for ‘motor vehicles’), a reasonable insured would expect that provisions promising ‘supplemental coverage’ operate to take something away from coverage granted elsewhere in the policy.

“In short, the policy as a whole, which Rural acknowledges we must consider, does not support Rural’s interpretation. Since we are to ‘narrowly construe exclusions in coverage against the insurer,’ … we cannot imply or infer the existence of an exclusion that is not expressed at all in the policy, as Rural would have us do.”

Order reversed and cause remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Grant County, Kirchman, J., Deininger, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Lee R. Atterbury, Madison; John M. Riley, Madison; Alexander Scott Kammer, Madison

For Respondent: Robert G. Wixson, Madison