Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wadzinski v. Auto-Owners Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 2012No. 2009AP2752Published

1DissentAnn Walsh Bradley, J.

¶ 41. {dissenting). The issue in this case is whether the umbrella insurance policy provides uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. The parties' arguments center on the meaning of an endorsement, which provides in full:

Exclusion of Personal Injury to Insureds Following Form

We do not cover personal injury to you or a relative. We will cover such injury to the extent that insurance is provided by an underlying policy listed in Schedule A.

¶ 42. Both parties agree that the first sentence, standing alone, would operate to exclude UM coverage.1 However, the first sentence does not stand alone, and *338the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Folkman v. QuammeWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Estate of Bradley v. Royal Surplus Lines InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
  3. Johnson Controls, Inc. v. London MarketWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
  4. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. BaileyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Muehlenbein v. West Bend Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API