01-0252 Schroeder v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Listen to this article

We conclude that the recent decision in Estate of Dorschner v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., 2001 WI App. 117, decided six months after the circuit court’s decision in this case, requires reversal.

“By prefacing the antistacking provision with the all-encompassing introductory words-‘Regardless of the number of policies involved, vehicles involved, persons covered, claims made, vehicles insured, or premiums paid’-State Farm did everything semantically possible to extend its antistacking endorsement to any other policy providing coverage….

“While Schroeder points out that the facts of Dorschner do not line up exactly with those of his case, he fails to explain how the slight distinctions make any difference. After all, according to the introductory words of the antistacking provision in the State Farm policies, regardless of whether an uninsured motor vehicle payment has been made under a policy issued to the owner of an insured vehicle (as in Dorschner), or under a policy issued to a victim’s parent (as in the instant case), the antistacking limitation is triggered. Thus, our conclusion in Dorschner controls this case as well.”

Further, we conclude that recent case law solidifies the legal foundation on which we also reject plaintiff’s constitutional due process challenge.

Order reversed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Amato, J., Schudson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Thomas E. Goss Jr., Milwaukee; Linda K. Bourdo, Ripon

For Respondent: Virginia M. Antoine, Milwaukee; Timothy S. Trecek, Milwaukee