856 N.W.2d 633
Wis. Ct. App.2014Background
- Barry Hunt sustained serious injuries in a collision with a Dane County snow plow operated by a county employee.
- Damages against the county are statutorily capped at $250,000 under Wis. Stat. § 345.05(3).
- Hunts held State Farm auto policy with $100,000 UM coverage per person/$300,000 per accident; the policy excluded government-owned vehicles from the UM definition but an endorsement did not clearly contain that exclusion.
- State Farm sought a declaration that UM coverage did not apply beyond the $250,000 cap; the circuit court granted summary judgment for State Farm.
- This Court reverses, holding that (a) the phrase 'legally entitled to recover' allows UM coverage up to policy limits even where damages against a governmental unit are capped by statute, and (b) the government-vehicle exclusion violates § 632.32.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'legally entitled to recover' under § 632.32(2)(d). | Hunts: entitled to UM up to policy limits even if tort recovery is capped. | State Farm: entitlement limited to amounts actually recoverable from tortfeasor up to cap. | UM coverage extends to policy limits despite statutory cap. |
| Validity of government-vehicle exclusion in the policy. | Exclusion not clearly in endorsement; if present, invalid under § 632.32. | Exclusion permissible under § 632.32(5)(e). | Exclusion invalid; AMEND policy to provide UM up to policy limits for government vehicles. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gillette, 251 Wis. 2d 56 (Wis. 2002) (interprets 'legally entitled to collect' in uninsured/underinsured contexts; not all defenses apply to UM)
- Trampf v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Co., 199 Wis. 2d 380 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996) (policy may expand but not reduce required § 632.32 coverage)
- Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 288 Wis.2d 282 (Wis. 2006) (uninsured/underinsured policy exclusions criticized where they reduce mandated coverage)
- Mau v. North Dakota Ins. Reserve Fund, 248 Wis.2d 1031 (Wis. 2001) (occupancy/other exclusions conflict with statutory requirements)
- Sahloff v. Western Casualty & Surety Co., 45 Wis.2d 60 (Wis. 1969) (uninsured motorist coverage applicability despite limitations elsewhere)