02-1689 Kendziora v. Church Mutual Insurance Co.

Listen to this article

Further, even though the declarations page on plaintiff’s policy states that the total premium paid for underinsured coverage is $8.00, plaintiff concedes that the $8.00 is the total cost for two $4.00 premiums for underinsured coverage for two vehicles.

“There is no language on the declarations page suggesting that because the two separate premiums were added together so that the total dollar amount could be listed, the policyholder could stack the UIM limits from the two policies to double the extent of coverage. To accept the Kendzioras’ argument, we would have to hold that because the declaration page lists a single $8.00 premium, instead of two $4.00 premiums, the UIM coverage available, which is listed as $100,000 for each person and $300,000 for each accident, can actually be doubled to permit a total coverage of $200,000 for each person and $600,000 for each accident. Such an argument is absurd and must be rejected.

“Moreover, a reasonable insured would follow such direction and refer to the Underinsured Motorists Coverage Endorsement, and then to the ‘Split Underinsured Motorists Limits’ amendment, to understand the coverage limits available. Having engaged in that exercise, a reasonable insured could only conclude that the EMCASCO underinsured motorist liability limit is capped at $100,000 for each person, and $300,000 for each accident. The language referred to clearly states that the limit of liability listed is the most that will be paid, regardless of the number of insureds, claims, vehicles or premiums shown in the declarations or vehicles involved in the accident. Consequently, it leaves no room for stacking the UIM limits simply because the Kendzioras had more than one policy or because the UIM premiums were totaled into a single amount.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Donegan, J., Wedemeyer, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Colleen L. Bero-Lehmann, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Mark J. Mingo, Milwaukee; Eugene M. LaFlamme, Milwaukee