01-1284 Sugden v. Bock

Listen to this article

“The Sugdens contend that the anti-stacking clauses in their policies cannot fall within Wis. Stat. § 632.32(5)(f) because to do so would make other, more specific provisions in the statute, such as § 632.32(5)(g), ‘superfluous’ since all anti-stacking provisions could fall under paragraph (f). But this is an argument that paragraph (f) is written too broadly and should be directed at the legislature, not the judiciary. It does not explain how the American Family policies fail to meet the requirements of the statute. We therefore reject the Sugdens’ argument that Wisconsin law prohibits the anti-stacking provisions contained in the American Family policies.”

In addition, we hold that no inequity will result from precluding the plaintiffs from asserting a waiver or estoppel claim.

“Although the Sugdens contend that they relied on the agent’s assurance that coverage still existed for Albert in accepting American Family’s settlement, they do not explain how accepting the settlement was detrimental to them. They received the maximum amount allowed under the four polices for one occurrence, or $50,000. Choosing not to accept American Family’s settlement offer would not have increased this amount or entitled the Sugdens to a larger sum. Further, the Sugdens do not allege that they lost significant time or resources due to the agent’s misrepresentation. We therefore conclude that American Family did not waive nor is it estopped from applying the anti-stacking provisions.”

Judgment and order affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Columbia County, George, J., Dykman, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Gregory R. Wright, Montello

For Respondent: David J. Pliner, Madison