2010AP663 Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. Olson

Listen to this article

Insurance
Exclusions; ambiguity

An insurance exclusion that excludes coverage for insureds and other persons who reside on the insured premises is not ambiguous.

“We conclude the exclusion at issue in this case is not ambiguous. The only reasonable interpretation of the exclusionary language is that it excludes liability coverage for bodily injury to two distinct groups: (1) insureds; and (2) persons other than insureds who reside on the insured premises. The Olsons’ interpretation would make the exclusion’s reference to ‘any “insured”‘ superfluous. Under the Olson’s interpretation, residence on the insured premises is necessary for the exclusion to apply, regardless of whether the injured person is an insured. However, if this interpretation were correct, there would be no reason for the exclusion even to refer to insureds – it could merely state that coverage is excluded for bodily injury to all persons who reside on the insured premises. Interpretations that render policy language superfluous are to be avoided where a construction can be given which lends meaning to the phrase. Bulen v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 125 Wis. 2d 259, 263, 371 N.W.2d 392 (Ct. App. 1985). Thus, the only reasonable interpretation of the exclusion reads the modifying phrase ‘who resides on the “insured premises”‘ as referring only to the words closest to it, ‘other person.’ The phrase does not refer back to ‘any “insured.”‘”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP663 Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. Olson

Dist. III, Barron County, Doyle, J., Peterson, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Danielson, Steven G., Eau Claire; For Respondent: Anderson, Arnold P., Madison

Full Text