Progressive Northern Insurance v. Olson
793 N.W.2d 924
Wis. Ct. App.2010Background
- Trevor Olson injured in an ATV accident on September 1, 2007 while visiting William Olson.
- Trevor's parents were divorced with Kathleen having primary physical placement and William alternating weekends and Thursday nights.
- Olsons sued William and Barron Mutual alleging negligent instruction, lack of helmet, and supervision.
- Barron Mutual moved for summary judgment arguing the policy exclusion bars Trevor’s claim.
- The exclusion excludes bodily injury to any insured or to other persons who reside on the insured premises.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in Barron Mutual’s favor, concluding Trevor was an insured and excluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the exclusion language ambiguous? | Olson contends ambiguity favors coverage. | Barron Mutual argues the exclusion is unambiguous. | Not ambiguous; exclusion is clear. |
| Does the exclusion apply to Trevor as an insured? | Olson: Trevor is an insured; may still be covered if exclusion read narrowly. | Barron Mutual: exclusion applies to any insured residing on premises. | Yes; exclusion applies because Trevor is an insured. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hull v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 222 Wis.2d 627 (Wis. 1998) (insurance policy ambiguity reviewed de novo)
- Grotelueschen v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 171 Wis.2d 437 (Wis. 1992) (give terms their plain meaning; ambiguity favored toward coverage)
- Cardinal v. Leader Nat'l Ins. Co., 166 Wis.2d 375 (Wis. 1992) (ambiguity resolved in favor of coverage)
- Taylor v. Greatway Ins. Co., 245 Wis.2d 134 (Wis. 2001) (policy language ambiguous if multiple reasonable interpretations)
- Bulen v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 125 Wis.2d 259 (Ct. App. Wis. 1985) (avoid superfluous language; give meaning to phrases)