Elliot Brey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 970 N.W.2d 1

In 2015 Ryan B. Johnson died in a car accident; his minor son Elliot Brey sought recovery under a State Farm policy that insured Brey as a resident relative of his mother.
Johnson (the decedent) was not insured under the State Farm policy; the insured vehicle under the policy was not involved in the accident.
The Policy’s UIM clause paid compensatory damages only for "bodily injury . . . sustained by an insured." Brey did not sustain bodily injury in the accident.
Brey sued to recover UIM benefits for his father’s death; the circuit court granted summary judgment to State Farm, finding no coverage under the Policy.
The court of appeals reversed, holding Wis. Stat. § 632.32(2)(d) barred insurers from conditioning UIM on the insured’s own bodily injury; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and reversed the court of appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wis. Stat. § 632.32(2)(d) prevents insurers from conditioning UIM on an insured's own bodily injury or death	Brey: the statutory definition of "underinsured motorist coverage" unambiguously covers insureds who are "legally entitled to recover" (so an insured beneficiary may recover for another's death even if the beneficiary was not injured)	State Farm: the statute must be read in context; other provisions contemplate coverage only where an insured suffers bodily injury or death, so insurers may require the insured to be the injured party	Held for State Farm: § 632.32(2)(d) does not bar conditioning UIM on an insured's own bodily injury or death
Whether a wrongful-death beneficiary may recover UIM where the decedent had no independent UIM claim	Brey: his wrongful-death claim derives from decedent and is covered because he is an insured and "legally entitled to recover damages" against an underinsured motorist	State Farm: wrongful-death claims are derivative; because the decedent was not an insured and had no UIM claim, the beneficiary has no derivative claim under the Policy	Held for State Farm: wrongful-death claims are derivative; Brey cannot recover because the decedent had no independent UIM claim

Ledman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 230 Wis. 2d 56, 601 N.W.2d 312 (Ct. App. 1999) (earlier court of appeals decision construing policy language about who may recover)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Langridge, 275 Wis. 2d 35, 683 N.W.2d 75 (Wis. 2004) (wrongful-death UIM claims are derivative of decedent’s rights)
Vieau v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. & Acuity, 289 Wis. 2d 552, 712 N.W.2d 661 (Wis. 2006) (upholding definitional exclusions to prevent ‘‘piggybacking’’ UIM recovery)
Christ v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 362 Wis. 2d 668, 866 N.W.2d 602 (Wis. 2015) (explaining derivative nature of wrongful-death actions)
Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (Wis. 2004) (state statutory interpretation framework emphasizing whole-text/context analysis)
Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 293 Wis. 2d 123, 717 N.W.2d 258 (Wis. 2006) (contextual statutory reading to avoid literal results)