 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Welin v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.5/24/2005
determine whether the tortfeasor's car satisfies the definition of underinsured motor vehicle. ... [The Praefkes] argue that because Mr. Praefke could only recover $75,000, that amount should be the number used when doing the UIM comparison. In other words, his UIM limit of $100,000 should be compared to the $75,000 that he actually recovered .... Although this argument may be logically appealing at first, it cannot withstand close scrutiny given the language of the policy and the lack of any case law to support such an argument.
First, the language of Sentry's insurance policy defining an underinsured motor vehicle is clear: the court must apply the limit of the liability policy to the limit of the UIM coverage purchased. A plain application of that language results in the conclusion reached by the trial court - the Grandstaff vehicle was not an underinsured motor vehicle because the liability limit and the UIM limit were the same.
Although this court can certainly understand the Praefkes' frustration with this result, our review is limited to interpreting the existing language; we do not have the authority to rewrite it. ... To accept the Praefkes' position, however, would result in bad law and create opportunity for manipulation and unpredictability. The case law has consistently performed the UIM analysis by comparing the limit of the liability policy to the limit of the UIM coverage, assuming of course that the policy at issue uses limits language.
Id., -14. The same reasoning applies in this case, and we are bound to follow it. Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189-90, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997).
The Reducing Clause
Welin argues that, if UIM coverage is triggered, the reducing clause in the American Family policy is invalid. Because we reject the ambiguity argument and hold the UIM coverage has not been triggered, we need not address this argument. See Praefke, 694 N.W.2d 442, .
By the Court.--Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE809.23(1)(b)5.
Ordered not published (06-22-2005).
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|