Commercial Union Midwest Insurance v. Vorbeck
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
1Opinion of the CourtNettesheim, J.
¶ 1. In Badger Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schmitz, 2002 WI 98, ¶ 75, 255 Wis. 2d 61, 647 N.W.2d 223, the supreme court considered whether an underinsurance reducing clause in a motor vehicle *208insurance policy was ambiguous, thereby rendering the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage illusory. As part of the analysis, the Schmitz court said, "[R] educing clauses must be crystal clear in the context of the whole policy. Otherwise, insureds are not likely to understand what they are purchasing." Id., ¶ 46. Following Schmitz, the court of appeals issued a number of opinions applying the Schmitz…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Folkman v. QuammeWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
- Badger Mutual Insurance v. SchmitzWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002
- Jones v. Secura InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002
- Hofflander v. St. Catherine's Hospital, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
- Dowhower Ex Rel. Rosenberg v. MarquezCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Olson v. Town of Cottage GroveWisconsin Supreme Court · 2008
- J. G. v. WangardWisconsin Supreme Court · 2008
- Allstate Insurance Company v. Donna E. Keca and Trisha Bontempo, Individually and as Guardian of Miranda BontempoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
- Bellile v. American Family Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2004
- Gohde v. MSI InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2004
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.