Insurance Coverage

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: Robert Bolger v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company

Case No.: 2022AP000742

Officials: Gill, J.

Focus: Insurance Coverage

The dispute in this case surrounds a homeowner’s insurance policy (hereinafter, “the policy”) issued by the Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (MBIC) to the insureds, Bret and Amy Achtenhagen, and whether that policy provided them with coverage for “personal liability” and “medical payments to others” following a utility terrain vehicle (UTV) accident away from their primary residence. The policy excluded that coverage for the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of the UTV. However, an exception to that exclusion reinstated the coverage for lawsuits brought against the Achtenhagens for bodily injury arising out of “[t]he ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of” a UTV “which is” “[u]sed to service an ‘insured’s’ residence.” The questions on appeal are whether the exception is fairly susceptible to more than one reasonable construction and whether, under the policy, MBIC was bound to defend and indemnify the Achtenhagens.

Although no Wisconsin appellate court has previously interpreted the particular language used in the policy exception at issue, the appeals court concludes that the exception, when properly read in the context of the policy’s other language, is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction. Either the exception: (1) reinstates liability coverage for an occurrence resulting in bodily injury at the “‘insured’s’ residence” arising out of a conveyance that was servicing that residence at the time of the occurrence; or (2) reinstates coverage for an occurrence resulting in bodily injury at any location arising out of a conveyance that serviced the “‘insured’s’ residence” at some point, but not necessarily at the time of the injury. The complaint in this case adequately alleged facts that would require MBIC to defend and indemnify the Achtenhagens under the second of these reasonable interpretations. Accordingly, the circuit court properly concluded that MBIC was obligated to defend and indemnify the Achtenhagens.

Affirmed.

Decided 03/26/24

Full Text