Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bethke v. Auto-Owners Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 2013No. 2010AP3153Published

1DissentShirley S. Abrahamson, C.J.

¶ 58. {dissenting). The majority opinion struggles mightily, but unsuccessfully, in my opinion, to justify awarding funds to the sympathetic innocent victims of an auto accident. Tragically, Kathryn Bethke died. Andrew Bethke was seriously injured. I agree with the majority that a fairer result, and perhaps one more in line with the theoretical goals of Underinsured Motorist Coverage (UIM), is for Ms. Bethke's insurance company to compensate the Bethkes. But that result is not consistent with the policy that Ms. Bethke purchased and that the insurance company issued. As much as my sympathies…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Boatright v. SpiewakCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1997
  2. Bruchert v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2007
  3. City of Milwaukee v. FroelichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API