Insurance — automobile coverage — stacking

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Insurance — automobile coverage — stacking

Under sec. 632.32(6)(d), which was in effect from November 2009 until November 2011 and applied specifically to underinsured motorist coverage, anti-stacking provisions were permissible.

“We have rejected Westra’s argument that WIS. STAT. §§ 631.43(1) and 632.32(6)(d) can be harmonized.  We must therefore apply the more specific statute to determine whether State Farm’s anti-stacking provision was permissible at the time of the accident.  See Clean Wis., 282 Wis. 2d 250, ¶175.  Section 631.43, which was enacted in 1975, applies broadly to all types of indemnity insurance.  See 1975 Wis. Laws, ch. 375, § 17 note (differentiating § 631.43, which ‘appl[ies] to all indemnity insurance[,]’ from its predecessor statute, which applied only to fire insurance).  In contrast, § 632.32(6)(d), which was enacted in 2009, applies specifically to uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.  See 2009 Wis. Act 28, § 3168.  Because § 632.32(6)(d) applies to a narrower class of insurance coverage than § 631.43(1), and because it specifically applies to the type of coverage at issue in this case, § 632.32(6)(d) is the more specific statute.  In addition, § 632.32(6)(d) was enacted after § 631.43(1).  See Martineau, 46 Wis. 2d at 449 (rule favoring application of specific statute over general statute is ‘especially true’ where specific statute was enacted after general statute).  We must therefore apply § 632.32(6)(d) to determine the validity of State Farm’s anti-stacking provision.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP48 Westra v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

Dist. III, St. Croix County, Needham, J., Stark, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Bye, Charles M., River Falls; Heidt, Martha H., River Falls; For Respondent: Covelli, Claude J., Madison