Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Insurance — domestic duty exclusions

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 26, 2012//

Insurance — domestic duty exclusions

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 26, 2012//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Insurance — domestic duty exclusions

Installation of siding on a house is a “domestic duty” under a homeowner’s policy.

“The evidence is undisputed that the hunting shack was built and added on to a number of years prior to Marnholtz’s injuries, and had been lived in on either a part-time or full-time basis for years. The installation of siding was not part of the structure’s actual erection, but rather an improvement to the existing structure. Had the installation of the siding been a part of the original construction of the building or its additions, an argument could be made that it preceded the occupancy of the building and was therefore not related to domestic duties. However, it was not. It was a later action that could just as easily be regarded as maintenance, like the repair of broken glass.”

“Therefore, while the narrow definition of domestic duties favored by Church Mutual is reasonable, so is the broader definition that could include routine maintenance like repairing broken window glass and, perhaps, repair or installation of new siding. Because the term “domestic duties” is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the phrase is ambiguous and therefore we must construe it in favor of coverage.”

“Giving the term ‘domestic duties’ a construction which favors coverage in this case, we conclude that the installation of siding as an improvement to the residence was a ‘domestic dut[y]’ under the terms of the Church Mutual policy. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s order for summary judgment in favor of Church Mutual.”

Reversed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP150 Marnholtz v. Church Mut. Ins. Co.

Dist. III, Lincoln County, Fox, J., Sherman, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Burnett, R. George, Green Bay; For Respondent: Preus, Christian A., Minneapolis

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