01-0327 Frost, by her Guardian ad Litem v. Whitbeck

Listen to this article

Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals holding that plaintiff and her daughter, who had been bitten by defendant’s dog, could bring an action for bodily injury against defendant’s homeowner’s insurance.

Although defendant insurance company argued that the word “relative” as contained in the policy was unambiguous and, at a minimum, meant “a person related to another by blood … no matter how distant or remote the connection,” we reject that argument.

“We agree with American Family that ‘relative’ means, at a minimum, a person related to another by blood and that numerous cases so state. We also accept that dictionaries define the word ‘relative’ to include a person related by blood. But neither a dictionary definition nor case law resolves the word’s elasticity in the case before us. A dictionary definition alone does not mean that the word is precise, definite, and inelastic. Moreover, the issue before us is not whether ‘relative’ means a person related to another by blood but rather whether ‘relative’ means, as American Family asserts, every person related to another by blood, no matter how distant or remote the connection, in the context of this policy. …

“Adhering to the rules of construction for interpreting language in a policy leads to the conclusion that the imprecise, elastic, indefinite word ‘relative’ should be construed against American Family and in favor of the policyholder and coverage. This conclusion about the word ‘relative’ is consistent with case law in other jurisdictions. The word ‘relative’ has been viewed as ambiguous and has been narrowly construed when the policy excludes a relative and has been broadly construed when the policy extends coverage to a relative. …

“[Further], a reasonable policyholder would not understand the word ‘relative’ in this policy exclusion to include any person related by blood no matter how remote the relationship. If ‘relative’ embodies all persons having a blood relationship to the insured, the effect is to enlarge the exclusion in this policy to extend to persons only barely and remotely touching the policyholder.”

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION: Wilcox, J. “I would find that under the well-established rules of insurance policy interpretation, the term ‘relative’ is unambiguous in this case, where Frost and Whitbeck knew of and acknowledged their blood connection. I would further hold that a reasonable person in the position of the policyholder would understand the word ‘relative’ in the policy exclusion to cover such a blood relation.

Finally, I would hold that the record in this case supports the conclusion that, as a matter of law, the Frosts were residents of Whitbeck’s household.”

Court of Appeals; Abrahamson, Ch. J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Michael S. Anderson, Madison

For Respondent: Virginia L. Newcomb, Paul F. Graves, Patryk Silver, Madison