Blum ex rel. Studinski v. 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance

¶ 80. 9concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in and join the majority opinion's conclusion that the uninsured motorist policy in this case is unambiguous and does not provide coverage when the owner of the uninsured vehicle was not negligent. I also concur in and join the majority's conclusion that Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4)(a) does not mandate coverage under these circumstances.

¶ 81. However, I dissent from the majority's conclusion that a court of appeals decision loses all precedential value when it is overruled in part by this court.1 I dissent because this conclusion is…