Insurance — homeowners policies — non-insured location exclusions

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Insurance — homeowners policies — non-insured location exclusions

A non-insured location exclusion to a homeowner policy does not apply to injuries that did not “arise out of” the family’s business property.

“Applying Newhouse here, the exclusion does not apply because there is no evidence of a correlation between the alleged tortious conduct and any condition of the shed. That is, there is no evidence that Gundrum’s liability arises because of some condition of the shed; no condition of the shed was a cause of the assault or Schinner’s injuries.”

“West Bend asserts there is evidence that Gundrum chose the shed for the underage drinking party based on its size and secluded location. West Bend argues that those features of the shed made it conducive to an illegal underage drinking party and, therefore, the necessary ‘correlation’ exists. We are not persuaded.”

“West Bend’s argument interprets the exclusion broadly, instead of narrowly as is required. See Day, 332 Wis. 2d 571, ¶29. And, it expands the ‘correlation’ concept beyond what is supported by the facts and reasoning in Newhouse. The silo unloader in Newhouse had at least as much of a connection to the alleged negligence in Newhouse as does any feature of the shed to Gundrum’s allegedly tortious conduct. The unloader was the direct instrument of the injury in Newhouse. Yet the court in Newhouse saw no ‘correlation’ between the unloader and the defendants’ negligent acts of leaving the minor plaintiff unattended with the unloader. Based on this standard, even assuming that the shed was in some respects an especially attractive location for an illegal underage drinking party that presented dangers of various kinds to participants, including potentially violent conduct by inebriated, youthful attendees, this does not constitute the type of ‘correlation’ that Newhouse requires.”

Reversed and Remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP564 Schinner v. Gundrum

Dist. II, Washington County, Pouros, Blanchard, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Stachowiak, Keith R., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Leavell, Jeffrey L., Racine; Pagel, Timothy L., Racine