804 N.W.2d 838
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Estates appeal a summary judgment in favor of Progressive; circuit court held Laura Link's sponsorship of her son's license did not constitute 'use' of the vehicle for purposes of Progressive's relative exclusion.
- David Jacobson, a minor, was driving the car involved in the fatal accident; the car was titled in his name and he carried his own auto insurance.
- Sponsor Laura Link’s license sponsorship under Wis. Stat. § 343.15(l)(a) makes sponsors jointly liable for a minor's negligence under § 343.15(2)(b).
- Progressive insured Link, but the Jacobson vehicle was not covered under Progressive's policy; policy excludes liability for injuries arising from ownership, maintenance, or use of a vehicle owned by a relative, with an exception for 'your maintenance or use of such vehicle.'
- Estate argued that sponsorship constitutes 'use' of the relative's vehicle and thus falls within the exception, while Progressive argued sponsorship does not demonstrate use.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for Progressive, applying the exclusion and concluding sponsorship does not amount to 'use' of the vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does sponsorship of a minor's license constitute 'use' of the vehicle? | Estates: sponsorship is 'use' of the vehicle. | Progressive: sponsorship is not 'use'; no control over the vehicle. | No; sponsorship alone is not 'use' under the policy. |
| How is the relative exclusion and its exception to be interpreted? | The exception covers Link's maintenance or use of the relative's vehicle. | Exclusion bars coverage unless 'use' is tied to the vehicle's inherent use; sponsorship does not meet that standard. | The exclusion is plain and does not extend to sponsorship as 'use'; coverage not triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Limpert v. Smith, 56 Wis.2d 632 (Wis. 1973) (relative exclusion context; policy language analyzed)
- Garcia v. Regent Ins. Co., 167 Wis.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1992) (use includes non-physical or indirect vehicle interactions)
- Thompson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 161 Wis.2d 450 (Wis. 1991) (use includes activities reasonably consistent with vehicle's inherent use)
- Tomlin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Liab. Ins. Co., 95 Wis.2d 215 (Wis. 1980) (activities linked to vehicle use must be within expected scope)
- Lawyer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 Wis.2d 408 (Wis. 1976) (use includes related activities to vehicle operation)
- Van Dyn Hoven v. Pekin Ins. Co., 258 Wis.2d 133 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002) (limits on coverage for certain violent acts within vehicle context)