01-0833 Wildin v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

Listen to this article

Although plaintiff argues that the word “repair” in the policy’s limitation of liability provision should be interpreted to mean restore to pre-loss condition so that, in addition to paying for the repair costs, the insurer must also pay for the diminished value of the vehicle, we disagree.

“We do not agree with Wildin that the policy language at issue here is ambiguous. The ‘limits of liability’ provision plainly lists three separate options and permits American Family to choose the option which costs the least. Although the word ‘repair’ is not defined in the policy, as used in this provision it is not ambiguous. A common word used in an insurance policy that is not defined in the policy is to be given its ordinary meaning, that is, the meaning understood by the average reasonable person; and the ordinary meaning may be established by reference to a recognized dictionary. [citation]. The common and ordinary meaning of ‘repair’ is ‘restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or broken.’ Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1923 (1993). ‘Repair’ is not ordinarily understood to mean to restore to pre-broken or pre-collision market value, as Wildin argues.

“Since the policy plainly gives American Family the right to elect the least expensive of the three options, it may choose to repair a vehicle even if all possible repairs do not restore the vehicle to its pre-collision market value. The complaint does not allege, and Wildin does not argue, that any repair was not done that could have been done or that her repaired vehicle is not fully functioning.”

Order dismissing the complaint is affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, Nicks, J., Vergeront, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Andrew S. Friedman, Phoenix, Az.; H. Sullivan Bunch, Signal Mountain, Tenn., et al.

For Respondent: Earl H. Hunson Jr., Madison