Insurance — anti-stacking clauses — drive-other-car exclusions

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Insurance — anti-stacking clauses — drive-other-car exclusions

Pursuant to the prohibition on anti-stacking clauses in sec. 632.32(6)(d), an auto insurer cannot use a drive-other-car exclusion to prevent an insured from stacking the uninsured motorist coverage of up to three vehicles.

“Here, applying the drive-other-car exclusion as suggested by State Farm would render meaningless both subsections (6)(d) and (5)(e). In contrast, construing the prohibition on anti-stacking clauses in Wis. Stat. §632.32(6)(d) as trumping the drive-other-car exclusion permitted by subsection (5)(j), gives meaning to all three subsections.”

“Such a construction would not render subsection (5)(j) meaningless because the drive-other-car exclusion that subsection permits would still function in other circumstances. Subsection (6)(d) is of limited application. It provides that no policy may prohibit stacking the uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage of up to three vehicles. Wis. Stat. §632.32(6)(d). The exclusion permitted by subsection (5)(j) still has force in that it would continue to apply to prevent the stacking of coverage on more than three vehicles. Additionally, because the limitations on anti-stacking provisions in subsection (6)(d) apply only to uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, the drive-other-car exclusion permitted by subsection (5)(j) continues to apply to other types of coverage.”

Affirmed.

2012AP829 Belding v. Demoulin

Bradley, J.

2014 WI 8

Attorneys: For Appellant: Pitts, Gregory A., Racine; For Respondent: Covelli, Claude J., Madison