837 N.W.2d 641
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- The Botdorfs renewed an Allstate auto policy on October 9, 2009, which provided $100,000 of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage and included a reducing clause that offset UIM limits by amounts paid by the tortfeasor or others.
- 2009 Wis. Act 28 (effective November 1, 2009) amended Wis. Stat. § 632.32 to prohibit reducing clauses in motor-vehicle insurance policies issued or renewed on or after November 1, 2009.
- On November 10, 2009 the Botdorfs asked Allstate to add a newly acquired Ford Econoline; Allstate issued an "Amended Auto Policy Declarations" endorsement effective November 11, 2009 adding that vehicle.
- On November 28, 2009 the Botdorfs were involved in an accident; the tortfeasor’s insurer paid limits that, under Allstate’s view, eliminated the Botdorfs’ UIM claim due to the reducing clause.
- The Botdorfs sued; the circuit court granted summary judgment to Allstate, holding the November 11 endorsement was merely a modification of an October 9 policy (not a new policy issued after November 1) so the reducing clause remained valid.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding the endorsement is a "policy" issued after November 1, 2009, rendering the reducing clause invalid under the statute and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Nov. 11, 2009 endorsement is a "policy issued or renewed" after Nov. 1, 2009, so the statutory ban on reducing clauses applies | The Nov. 11 endorsement constituted a new policy issued after Nov. 1, 2009; therefore the reducing clause is invalid | The addition of the vehicle was an endorsement/modification of the existing policy renewed Oct. 9, 2009, so the ban does not apply | Held for plaintiff: the endorsement qualifies as a "policy" issued after Nov. 1, 2009, so the reducing clause is invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 302 Wis. 2d 409, 734 N.W.2d 386 (Wis. 2007) (standards: de novo review for statutory construction and insurance-policy interpretation)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (Wis. 2004) (plain-language statutory interpretation governs legislative intent analysis)
- Stone v. Acuity, 308 Wis. 2d 558, 747 N.W.2d 149 (Wis. 2008) (§ 632.32 must be broadly construed to increase coverage for accident victims)
- Charoláis Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979) (unrefuted arguments are deemed admitted)
- Patrick Fur Farm, Inc. v. United Vaccines, Inc., 286 Wis. 2d 774, 703 N.W.2d 707 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005) (decide cases on the narrowest grounds)