Badger Mutual Insurance v. Schmitz

¶ 76. (dissenting). I cannot join the majority's opinion because in examining the insurance contract as a whole, the majority completely ignores the unambiguous UIM reducing clause. I would affirm the court of appeals' decision because when the unambiguous UIM reducing clause is read together with thé rest of the policy, I conclude that the reducing clause is not susceptible to more than one interpretation. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.1

*94¶ 77. In one breath the majority concludes that the UIM reducing clause here is unambiguous and not contrary to public policy since it complies with…