2008AP2929 Day v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

Listen to this article

Insurance
Homeowners policies; family exclusion

Where a family exclusion in a homeowners policy ambiguously defines “benefit,” the exclusion does not preclude coverage.

“We conclude that Allstate has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that a benefit of coverage would accrue directly or indirectly to an insured. To the extent that the terms of the policy lack clarity, the ambiguity in an insurance contract is construed in favor of coverage.”

“In sum, we determine that the court of appeals erred when it directed the circuit court to grant summary judgment in favor of Allstate. The court of appeals’ assertion that Clinton would have a legal right to collect a portion of the wrongful death award fails to distinguish the right to pursue a claim under the wrongful death statute from the ownership of a wrongful death recovery when the parties are divorced.”

“Based upon an examination of the language of the policy, the canons of insurance policy construction, and our case law, we conclude that Allstate has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the family exclusion unambiguously precludes coverage.”

Reversed and Remanded.

2008AP2929 Day v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

Bradley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Swietlik, John M., Jr., Milwaukee; Aiken, Michael D., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Bye, Charles M., River Falls; Heidt, Martha H., River Falls; Laule, Brian F., River Falls

Full Text