 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ruenger v. Soodsma3/31/2005
verage for him and thus violate § 632.32(6)(b)2.a. Id., . In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the statutory language following "named insured"--"or passenger in or on the insured vehicle"--did not modify "named insured." Id., n.16. In other words, § 632.32(6)(b)2.a. prohibited excluding from coverage a named insured without regard to whether the named insured was "in or on the insured vehicle."
Rural distinguishes the occupancy requirement in Mau and the occupancy exclusion in the UIM endorsement here, and we discuss those arguments below. However, Rural does not explain why the occupancy requirement in Mau is distinguishable in any significant way from the introductory language in the UIM endorsement if that language is construed to require occupancy in a covered auto. We see no significant distinction. The introductory language here, like the occupancy requirement in Mau, is not phrased as an exclusion, but, just as in Mau, if it is construed to require occupancy in a covered auto, the result is to exclude coverage for persons not occupying that particular vehicle. And, as in Mau, if that construction of the introductory language is applied to Ruenger, the effect is to exclude coverage for a named insured.
We conclude that a construction of the introductory language requiring Ruenger to occupy a covered auto in order to have UIM coverage is prohibited by WIS. STAT.§ 632.32(6)(b)2. as construed and applied in Mau. It follows that Rural may not rely on this language to deny Ruenger UIM coverage under the business policy.
Finally, we consider the exclusion for bodily injury sustained by the named insured while "occupying ... any vehicle owned by [the named insured] that is not a covered 'auto.'" For reasons similar to those we have just discussed with respect to the introductory language, we conclude this exclusion is prohibited by WIS. STAT.§ 632.32(6)(b)2. as construed and applied in Mau. The arguments that Rural makes to distinguish this exclusion from the occupancy requirement in Mau are not persuasive.
First, Rural argues that the occupancy exclusion does not exclude coverage for Ruenger if she is "in or on the insured vehicle," apparently viewing this phrase in WIS. STAT.§ 632.32(6)(b)2. as modifying "named insured" as well as "passenger." However, as we have noted above, the court in Mau specifically held that the phrase "in or on the insured vehicle" modified only "passenger," not "named insured." 248 Wis. 2d 1031, . Indeed, this construction of the statute was critical to the holding in Mau, because the occupancy requirement there did not exclude coverage for the named insured if he was in the rented vehicle, but, instead, specifically required that he be in the rented vehicle.
Second, Rural argues that, while the Mau occupancy provision required that the named insured occupy the insured vehicle in order to have UIM coverage, the exclusion here does not. Rather, the exclusion here applies only if the named insured is occupying a vehicle she owns that is not the insured vehicle. That is a factual distinction, but Rural does not explain its significance under the court's analysis in Mau. This is how the court in Mau analyzed the occupancy requirement in that policy in relation to WIS. STAT.§ 632.32(6)(b)2:
Section 632.32(6)(b)2.a. prohibits an exclusion for " ny person who is a named insured." We have already determined that Mau is a named insured under the excess policy. The occupancy requirement, if applied to Mau will exclude coverage for Mau, a named insured. Based on our analysis, we find that the occupancy requirement violates § 632.32(6)(b)2.a., because the occupancy requirement excludes coverage for a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Wisconsin Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|