Wisconsin Court of Appeals rules uninsured vehicle is not legally 'uninsured'.

Byline: David Ziemer

When is an uninsured motor (UM) vehicle not an "uninsured motor vehicle" for purposes of automobile insurance?

When even though the automobile is not insured, the negligent driver is insured under his own policy.

Writing for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on Dec. 4, Judge Margaret J. Vergeront concluded, "Section 632.32(4)(a) does not require coverage where, as here, the alleged tortfeasor is the operator of the vehicle and is covered by liability insurance. ... [A] reasonable insured would understand that 'uninsured motorist' coverage under the policy has the same meaning as that term in sec. 632.32(4)(a), the statute that mandates this coverage in the policy."

But Axley & Brynelson attorney Michael Riley, who represents the insured, said he would be filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing in part that it is unreasonable to impute knowledge of statutes, and prior court interpretations of them, to an insured who likely has no idea what the statute provides.

Kevin Blum, Jr., was injured when, after jumping on the hood of a vehicle driven by Nicholas Burch in a high school parking lot. Burch accelerated and then applied the brakes, throwing Blum to the curb.

Blum was insured through his parents' 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company policy, which provided coverage for damages the insured is "entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle."

The policy adds, "The owner's or operator's liability for these damages must arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle."

Burch was insured through American Standard Insurance Company, but the vehicle he was driving at the time was owned by his father, who had no insurance.

Blum settled with American Standard for Burch's policy limits, and then sued 1st Auto, seeking UM coverage.

The circuit court granted summary judgment to 1st Auto, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Statute

The court first held that sec. 632.32(4)(a)1 does not require coverage in this scenario, relying on the Supreme Court opinion in Hull v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 222 Wis.2d 627, 586 N.W.2d 863 (1998).

In Hull, the court held that the statute requires UM coverage "whenever either the owner or the operator of a motor vehicle is allegedly negligent and is not covered by liability insurance." Hull, 222 Wis.2d at 646.

Applying the holding in Hull, the Court of Appeals held coverage was not required: the negligent...