 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Quinn v. Riley9/30/2004
. This case involves uninsured motorist (UM) coverage and a reducing clause. American Family argues that the circuit court erred when it concluded that a reducing clause in the UM section of American Family's policy is ambiguous and unenforceable. We agree with American Family, and reverse the circuit court.
Background
. In 1997, James Riley, an uninsured motorist, struck and killed volunteer firefighter Gregory Quinn as Gregory was responding to the scene of an accident. Because Gregory's death occurred in the course of his service as a firefighter, his spouse Terry was paid worker's compensation benefits totaling $271,275. Terry and Gregory's son, Douglas, were also paid amounts by the United States Department of Justice under 42 U.S.C. § 3796.
. At the time of the accident, the Quinns were insured under an American Family policy with UM limits of $250,000 each person/$500,000 each accident. Following Gregory's death, his spouse Terry and son Douglas filed suit to recover UM benefits under the policy. American Family and the Quinns both moved for summary judgment. American Family argued that the policy's UM reducing clause was valid and enforceable and, therefore, the UM benefit to the Quinns was reduced to zero because Terry had received worker's compensation benefits in excess of $250,000.
. The circuit court determined that the reducing clause was ambiguous and, therefore, concluded that the Quinns were entitled to the $250,000 of UM coverage. The court cited two reasons why American Family's reducing clause was ambiguous in the context of the policy: (1) the policy's declaration page contained no language stating that the policy was subject to limitations and reductions; and (2) the policy did not clearly explain that it was providing a fixed level of UM insurance that would be arrived at by combining payments made from all sources. The circuit court denied American Family's motion for summary judgment with regard to the reducing clause, and American Family appeals that order.
Discussion
. This is another appeal involving the efficacy of a reducing clause in an automobile insurance policy. Most of the published cases on this topic deal with underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Here, we examine a UM reducing clause. Reducing clauses to both UIM coverage and UM coverage are authorized by Wis. Stat. § 632.32(5)(i), and the parties have not suggested any reason why the UIM cases do not apply in our UM context. Indeed, both parties and the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers (WATL) rely on UIM cases. Therefore, apart from one argument dealing with the statute requiring UM coverage, we look to UIM cases for guidance and controlling precedence.
. We also note that, although American Family is the appellant, we find it easier to structure our discussions around the arguments made by the Quinns and WATL.
. In this case, we review a grant and a denial of summary judgment. Our review is de novo, and we apply the same standard as the circuit court. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987). A party is entitled to summary judgment if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2). We begin our review with an overview of the policy and its pertinent parts.
The Policy's Language and Organization
. The "Wisconsin Family Car Policy" American Family issued to the Quinns is thirteen pages long. The first page is entitled "DECLARATIONS." It contains, among other information, lists of the policy's "COVERAGES AND LIMITS PROVIDED." The UM coverage appears as follows:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wisconsin Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|