2006AP265 Schleusner v. IMT Ins. Co.

Listen to this article

An insured injured during a demolition derby cannot recover under his uninsured motorist coverage.

“If Schleusner’s definition is correct, ‘designed’ refers to conditions in 1975, not existing conditions at the time of the accident. That simply is not a position a reasonable insured could take. A reasonable insured would realize existing conditions at the time of the accident governed the remainder of the policy, including all other exclusions from coverage. The insured could not reasonably choose a meaning of ‘designed’ that referred to 1975 over one that referred to existing conditions at the time of the accident.

“IMT’s interpretation is also the only one consistent with the purpose of the UM policy and the exclusion. When an insured purchases UM coverage, he or she purchases personal, portable coverage that protects from injury in a motor vehicle accident. Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2006 WI 89, ¶25, 717 N.W.2d 258. Here, Schleusner’s definition would lead to results that would not track the purpose of UM coverage in any meaningful way. In its brief, IMT correctly points out that under Schleusner’s definition of ‘designed,’ there would be coverage if Schleusner was injured while diving in a coral reef made of old cars, but no coverage if Schleusner was injured by a modified military vehicle originally designed for off road use but now licensed as an ordinary vehicle. These potential applications of the exclusion show how far Schleusner’s interpretation diverges from the purpose of UM coverage and the policy here.”

Reversed and Remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist. III, Polk County, Rasmussen, J., Peterson, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Gimber, Christine A., Eau Claire; Steffes, Ryan, Eau Claire; For Respondent: Whitley, Jason W., Amery