Rauch v. American Family Insurance

The decision of the majority is not new bad law but rather continues the error of Zepczyk v. Nelson, 35 Wis. 2d 140, 150 N.W.2d 413 (1967). I was not on the court in 1967, so this is my first opportunity to voice my dissent.

In Zepczyk, the court analyzed sec. 209.06(1), Stats. 1965.1 What the legislature meant to accomplish, this court abandoned. The legislature stated that no oral or written statement by an insured voided a policy unless :

“(1) the statement was false and made with the intent to deceive, or

“(2) the statement increased the risk or contributed to the loss.”

Zepczyk held at 145:

“E…