Insurance Claim – Maximum Liability

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: Savanah R. Thom, et al., 1^st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company, et al.,

Case No.: 2020AP285

Officials: Fitzpatrick, P.J., Blanchard, and Graham, JJ.

Focus: Insurance Claim – Maximum Liability

Savanah Thom was severely injured when her vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by a thirteen-year-old child. Thom brought claims against several of the child’s relatives and their insurers. Thom sought, in relevant part, a money judgment against the child’s insurers based on his negligent operation of the vehicle and against the child’s parents, Jason and Wendy Foerster, for their alleged negligent failure to control and supervise their child.

This appeal concerns a single defendant, Rural Mutual Insurance Company, which issued a motor vehicle policy to Jason. The Rural policy has a $300,000 per-accident limit of liability, and it insures Jason, Wendy, and any family member for their use of “any auto.” The Foerster child was driving his aunt’s vehicle with permission at the time of the collision, and this vehicle is not listed on the declarations page of the Rural policy. The parties dispute whether it is “described” in the Rural policy and, if so, whether Rural’s maximum liability is $300,000 or $900,000 based on the requirements of WIS. STAT. § 632.32(3) (2019- 20). The circuit court determined that Rural’s maximum liability is $300,000. The court then granted the motion. Thom filed pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 628.46, which requested prejudgment interest dating back nearly eighteen months.

Thom appeals the circuit court’s determination of Rural’s maximum liability, and Rural cross-appeals the court’s award of prejudgment interest. We affirm the order determining Rural’s maximum liability to be $300,000, although we base our decision on a different rationale than that relied on by the circuit court. Specifically, we conclude that WIS. STAT. § 632.32(3)’s requirements do not supersede the policy’s $300,000 limit of liability because the aunt’s vehicle is not “a motor vehicle described in the [Rural] policy,” as required by § 632.32(3). We also affirm the order requiring Rural to pay statutory prejudgment interest. At the pertinent time, the conditions necessary to trigger interest under WIS. STAT. § 628.46 were satisfied, and the court’s finding that Rural lacked reasonable proof that it was not responsible for paying Thom’s claim is not clearly erroneous.

Recommended for Publication

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Associate Corporate Counsel, IP at Amazon.