Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Insurance — automobile policies — coverage

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 24, 2012//

Insurance — automobile policies — coverage

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//July 24, 2012//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Insurance — automobile policies — coverage

Where a negligent driver was using his primary employer’s vehicle to deliver pizzas without the employer’s permission, the employer’s insurance policy does not provide coverage for the occurrence.

“In this case, there was credible evidence to support the verdict. As noted, Maniaci and Bellart both testified that the management team told Lowe at the November 2007 meeting that he was not to use the minivan to deliver pizzas. While Maniaci could not remember the exact words he used when speaking to Lowe, he testified at trial that ‘[Lowe] was using the vehicle to make extra money and it was our vehicle and I tried to convey … that I thought that was wrong.’ Likewise, Bellart recalled that the conversation was ‘pretty straightforward,’ in that Lowe was not to use the van to deliver pizzas. And, according to Bellart, ‘anybody leaving that meeting would have known they were not supposed to use the company vehicle to deliver pizzas.’ Maniaci further testified that the purpose of the November 2007 meeting was to offer to sell Lowe the Taurus ‘so he would stop using the van,’ and he recalled specifically telling Lowe to use the Taurus, rather than the company van, to deliver pizzas.”

“Given this credible evidence, we must sustain the jury’s verdict that Lowe did not have permission to drive Unlimited’s minivan for his pizza delivery job with Pizza Hut. See id., ¶38. While Lowe directs our attention to evidence from which a jury could infer that he did have permission to drive the van for any purpose, we again note that our role is not to reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. See id., ¶39. Our role is not to compare inferences. See id. Finally, contrary to what Lowe argues, Heaton does not stand for the proposition that we can only consider the issue of whether Lowe had permission from Lowe’s point of view; in fact, Lowe has not provided a citation pinpointing where Heaton discusses this specific proposition. See Madely v. RadioShack Corp., 2007 WI App 244, ¶22 n.8, 306 Wis. 2d 312, 742 N.W.2d 559 (we need not consider undeveloped arguments). We therefore conclude that the jury’s verdict will stand.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP1742 Lang v. Lowe

Dist. II, Waukesha County, Hassin, J., Curley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Goss, Thomas E., Jr., Milwaukee; Hanan, Beth E., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Tyndall, Susan R., Waukesha

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