04-1358 Vieau v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

Listen to this article

“American Family defines “relative” to exclude resident blood relations who own their own cars. The purpose of this exclusion is not to deny coverage or benefits to relatives, but to prevent car owners who either reject UIM coverage or who have independent policies from getting coverage they have not paid for simply because of their resident relative status….

“Kaczrowski’s Acuity policy provides UIM coverage for ‘bodily injury an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured vehicle.’ Vieau argues, and Acuity does not deny, that he meets the policy’s definition of an insured person because he occupied Kaczrowski’s insured vehicle. Vieau also argues that Kaczrowski’s vehicle was ‘underinsured’ because Kaczrowski’s liability policy is less than the limits of liability for UIM coverage. However, the policy further limits the meaning of an ‘underinsured vehicle’ by excluding any vehicle ‘owned by, furnished to, or available for regular use by you or a relative’ with ‘you’ defined as the named insured-in this case, Kaczrowski. To the extent that this definition of ‘underinsured vehicle’ has the potential effect of limiting coverage based on relative status, it is, Vieau contends, impermissible under Wis. Stat. § 632.32(6)(b)1. We disagree….

“We conclude that Acuity defines ‘underinsured motor vehicle’ to exclude a vehicle owned by the named insured, not to limit the rights of relatives, but to prevent the insured from effectively raising liability coverage without paying a higher premium. Because that end is permissible, the exclusion is as well.”

Judgment and orders affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Brown County, Zuidmulder, J., Cane, C.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Robert J. Janssen, De Pere; Christina L. Peterson, De Pere

For Respondent: Keith W. Kostecke, Appleton; Jonathan M. Menn, Appleton