Dorothy A. Pender v. Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company, 2021AP000838

Background

On November 30, 2018 a tow truck owned by LJ Auto Repair (driven by Justin Morgan) struck Dorothy Pender; Pender sued Morgan, LJ Auto Repair, its owner, and relevant insurers, naming Artisan as LJ Auto Repair’s carrier.
Artisan issued a policy to LJ Auto Repair effective June 19, 2018–June 19, 2019; LJ Auto Repair missed premium payments in July–August 2018 and Artisan mailed a cancellation notice (effective September 4, 2018).
Artisan submitted Form E (certificate of insurance) entries to the Wisconsin DOT; DOT rejected two Form E submissions for incorrect name information. Artisan cancelled those rejected Form E entries in the DOT CaTS system but did not file Form K (the DOT cancellation form).
Circuit court granted Artisan summary and declaratory judgment, finding Artisan had made a good-faith effort to notify DOT (via cancelling Form Es) and thus owed no coverage or duty to defend.
On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed: it held Artisan did not make a prima facie showing entitlement to summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist about whether DOT received proper cancellation notice (Form K) and about DOT approval/acceptance of the carrier insurance. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Pender's Argument	Artisan's Argument	Held
Whether Artisan properly notified DOT of policy cancellation under Trans 176.04(1) (Form K requirement)	Artisan failed to file Form K so cancellation was not effective and insurer remained liable under §194.41	Cancelled rejected Form E entries in DOT CaTS manual sufficed to notify DOT; Form K was a formality	Reversed — genuine issue of material fact whether cancelling rejected Form Es satisfies the Form K requirement; Artisan did not prove entitlement to judgment as a matter of law
Whether Financial Responsibility law (§194.41) applies when no Form E was accepted by DOT	§194.41 still applies unless insurer complied with DOT cancellation procedures	No Form E was ever accepted by DOT, so DOT approval prerequisite to §194.41 was not met; therefore no liability under that statute	Open factual question — record insufficient to resolve how DOT’s actions (accept/reject/certify) affect application of §194.41; remand required
Whether Artisan made a prima facie showing entitling it to summary judgment	Summary judgment inappropriate due to disputed material facts about notice, approvals, Form F endorsement, and effective cancellation dates	Artisan argued it complied with applicable procedures and therefore owed no coverage or duty to defend	Court held Artisan failed to make a prima facie showing; summary judgment improperly granted and must be reversed and remanded
Effect of the Form F endorsement and multiple cancellation effective dates on liability	Form F attachment and varying effective cancellation dates create material issues about coverage and DOT obligations	Argued procedural compliance via CaTS and underlying policy termination statute sufficed	Court found these are material factual issues that preclude summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

Rural Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peterson, 134 Wis. 2d 165 (1986) (Financial Responsibility law can impose insurer liability beyond ordinary policy terms)
State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (statutory interpretation principles)
State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627 (1992) (arguments unsupported by legal authority need not be considered)
Estate of Sustache v. American Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 311 Wis. 2d 548 (2008) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
AccuWeb, Inc. v. Foley & Lardner, 308 Wis. 2d 258 (2008) (summary judgment materials viewed in nonmovant’s favor)
Olson v. Farrar, 338 Wis. 2d 215 (2012) (de novo review where discretion turns on legal question)
Orion Flight Servs., Inc. v. Basler Flight Serv., 290 Wis. 2d 421 (2006) (administrative code interpretation follows statutory construction principles)