Robert H. Shugarts, II v. Dennis M. Mohr, 909 N.W.2d 402

On Oct. 11, 2010 Robert Shugarts (a deputy sheriff) was injured when Dennis Mohr struck his squad car; Mohr was insured by Progressive and the county vehicle by WMMIC; the Shugarts also had personal UIM coverage with Allstate.
Progressive initially denied coverage (Jan. 2012) as to Mohr based on an intentional-act exclusion, later offered $10,000, and eventually (Oct. 13, 2014) offered to pay Mohr’s $50,000 policy limit to settle.
The Shugarts sued Progressive in June 2013 and later amended to add WMMIC and, after Progressive’s $50,000 offer, added Allstate in March 2015.
Allstate moved for summary judgment, arguing the Shugarts failed to give timely notice of a UIM claim under the Allstate policy; circuit court and court of appeals granted summary judgment for Allstate.
Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding the UIM proof-of-claim notice was triggered by tender of the tortfeasor’s policy limit and the Shugarts’ notices (Oct. 28, 2014 retainer notice; Feb. 9, 2015 Vogt notice) were timely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the Allstate UIM policy’s proof-of-claim notice requirement trigger?	Trigger is tender/exhaustion of tortfeasor’s liability limits (not the accident).	Trigger is the accident or as soon as possible after injury; timely notice was long overdue.	Trigger is tender of tortfeasor’s policy limit; notice after Progressive’s $50,000 offer was timely.
Does the liability-section “notice of accident” clause apply to UIM claims?	No — liability and UIM sections are separate; UIM section controls.	Yes — the policy’s general notice language applies across sections.	No — reasonable insured would read the UIM section as governing UIM notice; liability clause does not apply.
Does Wis. Stat. § 631.81(1) (proof of loss within 1 year) control here?	§ 631.81(1) does not apply because the UIM policy requires proof of “claim,” not “loss.”	§ 631.81(1) applies to all insurance and makes the notice untimely.	§ 631.81(1) does not apply; its text refers back to policy provisions that require notice/proof of loss.
If notice were untimely, did insured rebut presumption of prejudice?	N/A (court resolved on timeliness)	Allstate argued insured failed to rebut prejudice.	Court did not reach prejudice because notice was held timely.

Vogt v. Schroeder, 129 Wis. 2d 3 (UIM insurer’s subrogation rights and right to notice of tentative settlements)
Danbeck v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 245 Wis. 2d 186 (UIM exhaustion clause: UIM triggered only after tortfeasor’s liability limits are exhausted)
Martinson v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 63 Wis. 2d 14 (distinguishable UM case: proof-of-claim must be filed as soon as practicable after incident)
Yocherer v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 252 Wis. 2d 114 (policy language can show when a presentable claim exists)
Ranes v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 219 Wis. 2d 49 (failure to give notice of settlement bars UIM coverage only if insurer prejudiced)
Pitts v. Revocable Trust of Knueppel, 282 Wis. 2d 550 (discussing substitution of payment and preservation of subrogation rights)
Acuity v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., 361 Wis. 2d 396 (policy interpretation against insurer when ambiguous)