01-2509 Stubbe v. Guidant Mutual Insurance Co.

Listen to this article

“It is reasonable to read the schedule of underlying limits (which lists underinsured motorist coverage as ‘included’) and the policy’s requirement that the insured ‘maintain in full effect the insurance afforded by each policy described in the Declarations’ to indicate that underinsured motorist protection is available as part of the umbrella policy. In particular, we conclude that a reasonable insured would believe that if underinsured motorist coverage were not available under the umbrella policy, the insured would not be required to maintain the underinsured motorist portion of their automobile policy ‘in full effect.’…

“Because we conclude that the umbrella policy issued to Stubbe is ambiguous in regard to coverage for underinsured motorist claims and that Stubbe has a reasonable expectation of coverage for this claim, we resolve the ambiguity in the umbrella policy against Guidant. Accordingly, to the extent that there are amounts that would have been paid under the underinsured motorist provision in Stubbe’s automobile policy but for that policy’s monetary limits, they are covered by the umbrella policy.”

Reversed and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, Albert, J., Roggensack, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: John M. Riley, Madison

For Respondent: Richard G. Niess, Madison