Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Insurance — auto policies — sponsorship

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 27, 2011//

Insurance — auto policies — sponsorship

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 27, 2011//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Insurance

Auto policies; sponsorship

Mere sponsorship of a minor’s driver’s license is insufficient evidence of control where the sponsor did not own the vehicle, was not in it, and did not operate it or direct its use.

“Mere sponsorship is an act too far removed from the inherent nature of a vehicle to deem a ‘use’ by an insured. The sponsorship statute does not require that the sponsor accompany the juvenile, give the juvenile permission to drive, or even know that the juvenile is driving. The statute simply makes the sponsor liable for the negative consequences of the juvenile’s wrongful conduct. In this way, sponsorship is akin to an act that, while tangentially related to a use of an auto, falls short of being a risk for which the parties contemplated coverage. See Tomlin, 95 Wis. 2d at 225 (minor’s stabbing of a police officer during traffic stop not a use reasonably contemplated by the parties and not an act consistent with the inherent use of an automobile); Van Dyn Hoven, 258 Wis. 2d 133, ¶10 (no coverage for fatal stabbing that occurred in a truck).”

“The Estates contend that Progressive must provide coverage because ‘but for [Link’s] sponsorship, [Jacobson] would not have had a driver’s license and would not have been driving the vehicle involved in the accident.’ This argument incorrectly equates coverage with causation. ‘The causal connection required to be established between the use of the automobile and the injuries is not the type which would ordinarily be necessary to warrant a finding of “proximate cause” or “substantial factor” as those terms are used in imposing liability for negligent conduct.’ Lawver, 71 Wis. 2d at 415. Even if Link’s sponsorship was a legal cause of Loescher’s and Hiatt’s deaths (a matter we do not decide), that does not answer whether Link’s sponsorship was a use of Jacobson’s vehicle.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP2660 Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. Jacobson

Dist. III, Eau Claire County, Stark, J., Cane, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Finn, Stephanie L., Eau Claire; Heit, Jay E., Eau Claire; For Respondent: Peters, Daniel R., Wausau

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests