Title: Dale Rebernick v. Wausau General Insurance Company

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2006 WI 27 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP487 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Dale Rebernick, Sandra Rebernick and Gregory 
Rebernick by his Guardian ad Litem, 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
     v. 
Wausau General Insurance Company, 
          Defendant, 
 
American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
2005 WI App 15 
Reported at: 278 Wis. 2d 461, 692 N.W.2d 348 
(Ct. App. 2004 – Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 30, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
January 10, 2006   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee   
 
JUDGE: 
Daniel A. Noonan   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
BUTLER, JR., J., dissents (opinion filed). 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., joins the dissent.   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners there were briefs 
by Thomas A. Ogorchock and Miller & Ogorchock, S.C., Milwaukee, 
and oral argument by Thomas A. Ogorchock. 
 
For the defendant-respondent there was a brief by Emile H. 
Banks, Jr., Vicki L. Arrowood, and Emile Banks & Associates, 
LLC, Milwaukee, and oral argument by Emile H. Banks, Jr. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Beth Ermatinger Hanan 
and Gass Weber Mullins LLC, Milwaukee, on behalf of Wisconsin 
Insurance Alliance, Civil Trial Counsel of Wisconsin, and 
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. 
 
 
 
2
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Lynn R. Laufenberg and 
Laufenberg & Hoefle, S.C., Milwaukee, on behalf of the Wisconsin 
Academy of Trial Lawyers. 
 
2006 WI 27
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP487  
(L.C. No. 
2002CV163) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Dale Rebernick, Sandra Rebernick and Gregory 
Rebernick by his Guardian ad Litem, 
 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Wausau General Insurance Company, 
 
          Defendant, 
 
American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 
 
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 30, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   Dale and Sandra Rebernick, 
along with their minor son, Gregory, petition for review of a 
published court of appeals decision affirming a circuit court 
order dismissing their claim against their insurer, American 
Family Mutual Insurance Company.1  The Rebernicks assert that 
                                                 
1 See Rebernick v. Wausau Gen. Ins. Co., 2005 WI App 15, 278 
Wis. 2d 461, 692 N.W.2d 348 (affirming an order of the circuit 
court for Milwaukee County, Daniel A. Noonan, Judge). 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
2 
 
they 
are 
entitled 
to 
retroactively 
purchase 
underinsured 
motorist (UIM) coverage under their umbrella policy because 
American Family failed to notify them of the availability of UIM 
coverage under the policy pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m) 
(2003-04).2 
¶2 
We determine that American Family was required to 
notify the Rebernicks of the availability of UIM coverage under 
their umbrella policy pursuant to § 632.32(4m).  However, we 
also determine that, given the circumstances of this case, 
American Family provided notice to the Rebernicks of the 
availability of UIM coverage under their umbrella policy.  Thus, 
we need not address what remedy would be appropriate had 
American 
Family 
failed 
to 
notify 
the 
Rebernicks 
of 
the 
availability of UIM coverage.  We affirm the court of appeals. 
I 
¶3 
The facts are undisputed for purposes of our decision.  
Dale Rebernick was seriously and permanently injured when the 
lawn mower he was riding was hit by a car.  The driver of the 
car had $25,000 in liability insurance, which was paid to 
Rebernick.  In addition, Rebernick collected the $100,000 limits 
of UIM coverage under the Rebernicks' automobile insurance 
policy with American Family. 
¶4 
The Rebernicks also had a $1 million umbrella policy 
through American Family that required them to maintain their 
                                                 
2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2003-04 version unless otherwise indicated.   
No. 
2004AP487   
 
3 
 
underlying automobile policy as primary insurance.  They sued 
American Family for additional funds under the umbrella policy.  
Although the terms of the umbrella policy expressly excluded UIM 
coverage, the Rebernicks asserted that they were entitled to 
reformation of the policy because American Family had failed to 
provide them with notice of the availability of UIM coverage for 
that policy.  Such notice, they asserted, was required under 
§ 632.32(4m).3  
                                                 
3 Wisconsin Stat. § 632.32(4m) reads in pertinent part as 
follows: 
Underinsured motorist coverage. (a)1. An insurer 
writing policies that insure with respect to a motor 
vehicle registered or principally garaged in this 
state against loss resulting from liability imposed by 
law for bodily injury or death suffered by a person 
arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a 
motor vehicle shall provide to one insured under each 
such insurance policy that goes into effect after 
October 1, 1995, that is written by the insurer and 
that does not include underinsured motorist coverage 
written notice of the availability of underinsured 
motorist coverage, including a brief description of 
the coverage.  An insurer is required to provide the 
notice required under this subdivision only one time 
and in conjunction with the delivery of the policy. 
2. An insurer under subd. 1. shall provide to one 
insured under each insurance policy described in subd. 
1. that is in effect on October 1, 1995, that is 
written by the insurer and that does not include 
underinsured motorist coverage written notice of the 
availability 
of 
underinsured 
motorist 
coverage, 
including a brief description of the coverage.  An 
insurer is required to provide the notice required 
under 
this 
subdivision 
only 
one 
time 
and 
in 
conjunction with the notice of the first renewal of 
each policy occurring after 120 days after October 1, 
1995. 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
4 
 
¶5 
American Family moved for summary judgment, asserting 
that the notice requirements of § 632.32(4m) apply only to 
primary automobile insurance polices.  The Rebernicks countered 
with a motion for declaratory relief.  In addressing the 
motions, the circuit court noted that the purpose of the statute 
is to ensure that all insureds know of the availability of UIM 
coverage.  It observed that the Rebernicks had purchased UIM 
coverage in their primary automobile policy and that they were 
not alleging American Family failed to provide the proper notice 
under § 632.32(4m) with respect to that policy.  Additionally, 
the court noted that the Rebernicks' umbrella policy states that 
it does not provide UIM coverage unless the policy is endorsed 
to provide such coverage.  Thus, the court reasoned, the 
Rebernicks were aware of the availability of UIM coverage under 
their umbrella policy. 
¶6 
The circuit court concluded that the purpose of the 
notice provisions in § 632.32(4m) was fulfilled and that the 
Rebernicks were not entitled to UIM coverage under their 
umbrella policy.  It therefore granted American Family's motion, 
denied the Rebernicks' motion, and dismissed the Rebernicks' 
claim against American Family.    
¶7 
The Rebernicks appealed.  In a split decision, the 
court of appeals affirmed the circuit court under a somewhat 
different rationale.  The court of appeals majority and dissent 
agreed that § 632.32(4m) applied to the Rebernicks' umbrella 
policy under the plain language of § 632.32(1) and (4m), thereby 
requiring American Family to notify the Rebernicks of the 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
5 
 
availability of UIM coverage in their umbrella policy.4  The 
majority of the court of appeals further determined that the 
Rebernicks were not entitled to reformation of the umbrella 
policy because they knew both (1) that their umbrella policy 
could give them UIM coverage via an endorsement to that policy 
and 
(2) 
what 
UIM 
coverage 
encompassed. 
 
The 
Rebernicks 
petitioned for review. 
II 
¶8 
The central issue before us is whether American Family 
was required to notify the Rebernicks of the availability of UIM 
coverage under their umbrella policy pursuant to § 632.32(4m).  
In order to address this issue, we must interpret and apply 
statutory provisions to undisputed facts.  This issue presents a 
question of law subject to independent appellate review.  Phelps 
v. Physicians Ins. Co., 2005 WI 85, ¶25, 282 Wis. 2d 69, 698 
N.W.2d 643. 
¶9 
We determine that American Family was required to 
notify the Rebernicks of the availability of UIM coverage under 
their 
umbrella 
policy 
pursuant 
to 
§ 632.32(4m). 
 
Our 
determination is based on the language of § 632.32.  At the same 
                                                 
4 Wisconsin Stat. § 632.32(1) provides, in pertinent part, 
as follows: 
Scope. Except as otherwise provided, this section 
applies to every policy of insurance issued or 
delivered 
in 
this 
state 
against 
the 
insured's 
liability for loss or damage resulting from accident 
caused by any motor vehicle, whether the loss or 
damage is to property or to a person. 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
6 
 
time, 
it 
is 
supported 
by 
the 
history 
and 
purpose 
of 
§ 632.32(4m), along with a provision in the administrative code. 
¶10 In 
addition, 
we 
determine 
that, 
given 
the 
circumstances of this case, American Family provided notice to 
the Rebernicks of the availability of UIM coverage under their 
umbrella policy.  Thus, we need not address what remedy would be 
appropriate had American Family failed to notify the Rebernicks 
of the availability of UIM coverage.   
III 
¶11 The Rebernicks argue that § 632.32(4m), read together 
with the "scope clause" in § 632.32(1), makes clear that the 
notice provisions in § 632.32(4m) apply to their umbrella 
policy.  In addressing their argument we begin, as we must, with 
the relevant statutory language.5 
¶12 Section 632.32(1) provides as follows: 
Scope.  
Except 
as 
otherwise provided, 
this 
section applies to every policy of insurance issued or 
delivered 
in 
this 
state 
against 
the 
insured's 
liability for loss or damage resulting from accident 
caused by any motor vehicle . . . . 
                                                 
5 At oral argument, the Rebernicks emphasized that their 
argument is not that all insurers are required by § 632.32(4m) 
to write all umbrella policies with UIM coverage.  Rather, their 
argument is that the legislature has mandated that insurers 
educate the public as to the availability of UIM coverage.  
Likewise, the Rebernicks explain that they are not arguing that 
§ 632.32(4m) mandates coverage or limits "up to a certain 
amount."  Rather, they argue:  "All it [§ 632.32(4m)] is, is a 
notice requirement."  Accordingly, we do not address issues 
beyond the arguments advanced by the Rebernicks.    
No. 
2004AP487   
 
7 
 
Thus, § 632.32(1) generally delineates the types of insurance 
policies to which § 632.32 applies.  However, it also qualifies 
the scope of § 632.32's applicability "as otherwise provided." 
¶13 Section 
632.32(4m), 
in 
turn, 
contains 
language 
describing the types of policies to which the UIM notice 
requirements apply.  This language is different from the 
language generally delineating the types of policies to which 
§ 632.32 applies.  Specifically, § 632.32(4m) applies to an 
insurer writing polices that "insure with respect to a motor 
vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state against 
loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury 
or death suffered by a person arising out of the ownership, 
maintenance or use of a motor vehicle." 
¶14 In an opinion also released today, Rocker v. USAA 
Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 WI 26, ¶37, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ___, this court explained how the scope clause in 
§ 632.32(1) works in relation to other subsections of § 632.32: 
According to Wis. Stat. § 632.32(1), "[e]xcept as 
otherwise provided, this section applies to every 
policy of insurance issued or delivered in this state 
against the insured's liability for loss or damage 
resulting 
from 
accident 
caused 
by 
any 
motor 
vehicle . . . ."  Hence, the broad scope of the entire 
section is dependent upon whether a policy includes 
motor 
vehicle 
coverage, 
but 
each 
subsection can 
include provisions which exempt certain coverages from 
the scope as defined in § 632.32(1).  Therefore, in 
any particular case, it is improper to conclude that, 
because one subsection has been held to apply to a 
certain type of policy, all the other subsections must 
be held to apply as well.  Each subsection can provide 
its own exemptions under the statutory framework. 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
8 
 
Thus, the court in Rocker determined, "[t]he language of 
§ 632.32(1) unambiguously requires every insurance policy that 
provides 
motor 
vehicle 
liability 
coverage 
to 
meet 
the 
requirements of the other sections of the omnibus statute, 
unless otherwise provided."  Id., ¶46; see also Heritage Mut. 
Ins. Co. v. Wilber, 2001 WI App 247, ¶17, 248 Wis. 2d 111, 635 
N.W.2d 631 (general liability policy fell within § 632.32(1)'s 
scope provision when it provided automobile liability coverage).6 
¶15 The Rebernicks' umbrella policy includes automobile 
liability coverage.  For example, the policy covers an insured's 
liability for an accident causing personal injury or property 
damage arising out of the use of a car the insured owns.  Thus, 
there can be no real dispute that the Rebernicks' umbrella 
policy falls within the general scope of § 632.32(1).  In other 
words, there can be no real dispute that the policy was 
"issued . . . against the insured's liability for loss or damage 
                                                 
6 The parties debate the import of Jaderborg v. American 
Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2000 WI App 246, 239 Wis. 2d 533, 
620 N.W.2d 468 (applying § 632.32(6)(b)1. and 2. to an umbrella 
policy).  That case, however, is not determinative here.  
Likewise, other cases in which the court of appeals has applied 
subsections of § 632.32 other than (4m) to umbrella policies are 
not necessarily determinative.  See Dorbritz v. American Family 
Mut. Ins. Co., 2005 WI App 154, ¶14, 284 Wis. 2d 442, 702 
N.W.2d 406; Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wilber, 2001 WI App 247, 
¶17, 248 Wis. 2d 111, 635 N.W.2d 631.  As this court explained 
in Rocker v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 WI 26, ¶37, ___ 
Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, "in any particular case, it is 
improper to conclude that, because one subsection has been held 
to apply to a certain type of policy, all the other subsections 
must be held to apply as well." 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
9 
 
resulting 
from 
accident 
caused 
by 
any 
motor 
vehicle."  
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(1). 
¶16 Consistent with Rocker, however, we must also examine 
the language in § 632.32(4m), asking whether that subsection of 
the statute includes any provisions that would exempt the 
Rebernicks' umbrella policy from the scope of § 632.32 as 
defined in § 632.32(1).  We therefore return to the language of 
§ 632.32(4m), which we read to confine that subsection's 
applicability to policies that "insure with respect to a motor 
vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state against 
loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury 
or death arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a 
motor vehicle." 
¶17 The Rebernicks' umbrella policy insures "against loss 
resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or 
death arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a 
motor 
vehicle." 
 
American 
Family 
asserts, 
however, 
that 
§ 632.32(4m) does not apply to the Rebernicks' umbrella policy 
because of the first part of the excerpted language.  It focuses 
on the phrase "with respect to a motor vehicle registered or 
principally garaged in this state."  (Emphasis added.)  American 
Family construes this language to mean that § 632.32(4m) applies 
only to policies that insure with respect to a particular motor 
vehicle.  According to American Family, the Rebernicks' umbrella 
policy, unlike a primary automobile insurance policy, does not 
insure with respect to a particular motor vehicle. 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
10 
 
¶18 We are not persuaded that such a construction of 
§ 632.32(4m) carries the day for American Family.  The statute 
does not say, as American Family's argument suggests, that the 
policy 
must 
insure 
"with 
respect 
to 
a 
particular 
motor 
vehicle named 
or described 
in 
the 
umbrella 
policy. . . ."  
Rather, the statute simply says that the policy must insure 
"with respect to a motor vehicle registered or principally 
garaged in this state . . . ." 
¶19 
Even 
assuming, 
however, 
that 
American 
Family's 
interpretation is correct, the Rebernicks' umbrella policy does 
insure with respect to a particular motor vehicle.  Their 
umbrella policy, like any "true" umbrella policy, requires 
underlying primary insurance.7  In the center of the declaration 
page of the umbrella policy appears a heading in bold capital 
letters:  "SCHEDULE OF UNDERLYING INSURANCE."  Immediately below 
that heading, the umbrella policy declaration page references 
the 
underlying 
primary 
"Car 
Liability 
Insurance" 
policy, 
together with the underlying insurance policy limits.  The 
declaration page is specifically made part of the umbrella 
policy. 
¶20 The terms of the policy require, as a condition of 
insurance, 
that 
there 
be 
underlying 
automobile 
insurance 
coverage in a specified amount.  The underlying primary 
                                                 
7 Treder v. LST, Ltd. P'ship, 2004 WI App 75, ¶14, 271 
Wis. 2d 771, 679 N.W.2d 555, review denied, 2004 WI 114, 273 
Wis. 2d 656, 684 N.W.2d 137; Oelhafen v. Tower Ins. Co., 171 
Wis. 2d 532, 537-38, 492 N.W.2d 321 (Ct. App. 1992). 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
11 
 
automobile policy, in turn, refers to a particular motor 
vehicle.  Thus, the Rebernicks' umbrella policy insures "with 
respect" to a particular motor vehicle that is named or 
described in the policy by incorporation of the underlying 
policy. 
¶21 Our reading of the statute is thus consistent with the 
court of appeals' interpretation of the statute.  Both the 
majority and dissent of the court of appeals agreed that 
American Family was required to provide the Rebernicks with 
notice of the availability of UIM coverage under their umbrella 
policy pursuant to the plain language of § 632.32(1) and (4m). 
¶22 Also consistent with our reading, at least one 
commentator has criticized 
the interpretation 
advanced by 
American Family and accepted by another court.  The gist of the 
criticism is that this interpretation ignores the reality that 
an umbrella policy typically requires an underlying primary 
policy: 
[O]ne judicial decision, sustaining the view that an 
insurer providing excess coverage is not subject to 
the statutory requirement, reasoned that "umbrella 
policies insure the policy holder in general, rather 
than a particular automobile within the state" and, 
therefore, "umbrella insurance policies are not issued 
'with respect to a motor vehicle registered or 
principally 
garaged 
in 
this 
commonwealth. . . .'"  
However, this observation seems to ignore the fact 
that 
the 
coverage 
provided by 
excess 
(including 
umbrella) insurance is generally conditioned on the 
existence 
of 
one 
or 
more 
primary 
coverages.  
Typically, for example, an insurer providing a layer 
of 
excess 
liability 
insurance——which 
applies 
to 
liability arising from the operation of a motor 
vehicle——will require the insured to have a specified 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
12 
 
amount of primary motor vehicle liability insurance 
coverage. 
Alan I. Widiss & Jeffrey E. Thomas, 3 Uninsured and Underinsured 
Motorist Insurance, § 32.5, at 25 (3d ed. 2005) (footnote 
omitted; quoting Stoumen v. Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 834 
F. Supp. 140, 143 (E.D. Pa. 1993)). 
¶23 Thus, it is something of a fiction to suggest that an 
umbrella policy does not insure with respect to a particular 
motor vehicle when the policy requires underlying insurance that 
does.  Accordingly, we determine that pursuant to § 632.32(4m), 
American Family was required to notify the Rebernicks of the 
availability of UIM coverage under their umbrella policy. 
¶24 The sparse legislative history of § 632.32(4m) does 
not suggest otherwise.  The 1995 bill that led to the adoption 
of subsection (4m) related to "stacking of motor vehicle 
insurance coverage and drive–other–car exclusions under motor 
vehicle policies."  1995 S.B. 6, Legislative Reference Bureau 
drafting file; see also 1995 Wis. Act 21.  Subsection (4m), 
however, was added in an Assembly substitute amendment offered 
by the Committee on Insurance, Securities and Corporate Policy.  
Id.  Nothing in the legislative drafting file suggests that the 
legislature intended that all umbrella policies be exempt from 
the notice requirements under subsection (4m).  The final 
version of the act states that its purpose, in relevant part, 
relates 
simply 
to 
"notification 
of 
the 
availability 
of 
underinsured motorist coverage."  1995 Wis. Act 21. 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
13 
 
¶25 From both the language of the statute and the sparse 
legislative history, it is thus evident that a central purpose 
of § 632.32(4m) is to ensure that all insureds know of the 
availability of UIM coverage.  Put another way, the legislature 
has determined that where UIM coverage is available, insureds 
should know about it.  The interpretation of § 632.32(4m) to 
require that American Family notify the Rebernicks of the 
availability of UIM coverage under their umbrella policy 
comports with this purpose.  
¶26 We note that in some states, the legislature has 
expressly 
exempted 
umbrella 
policies 
from 
uninsured 
or 
underinsured motorist statutes.  See, e.g., Cal. Ins. Code 
§ 11580.2(a) (2006); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-284(a) and (b) (2004); 
see also Lisa K. Gregory, "Excess" or "umbrella" Insurance 
Policy As Providing Coverage for Accidents with Uninsured or 
Underinsured Motorists, 2 A.L.R.5th 922, § 3 (1992).  Our 
legislature, in contrast, has not. 
¶27 In 1987, the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance 
promulgated 
a 
regulation 
specifically 
exempting 
umbrella 
policies from the requirements of § 632.32(4), the statutory 
provision that mandates uninsured motorist coverage.  See 
Wis. Admin. Code § Ins 6.77; Wis. Admin. Register, May 15, 1987, 
No. 377.  In the more than 10 years that have passed since the 
legislature 
amended 
§ 632.32 
to 
include 
subsection 
(4m), 
however, the Commissioner has not promulgated a rule exempting 
umbrella policies from the requirements of (4m), the statutory 
provision that mandates notice of the availability of UIM 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
14 
 
coverage. 
 
We 
view 
this 
as 
further 
support 
for 
our 
interpretation 
of 
§ 632.32(4m), 
that 
American 
Family 
was 
required to provide notice to the Rebernicks of the availability 
of UIM coverage in their umbrella policy.8   
¶28 When the legislature enacted § 632.32(4m) in 1995, it 
chose to treat underinsured motorist coverage differently than 
it had treated uninsured motorist coverage.  The legislature had 
directly mandated that all policies under § 632.32(4) must 
contain 
uninsured 
motorist 
coverage. 
 
However, 
under 
§ 632.32(4m) the focus changed, and the legislature required 
"written notice of the availability of underinsured motorist 
coverage." 
¶29 At 
oral 
argument, 
counsel 
for 
American 
Family 
explained that the reason for buying an umbrella policy is that 
                                                 
8 The language in § 632.32(4) describing the types of 
policies to which it applies is similar but not identical to the 
language in § 632.32(4m) describing the types of policies to 
which it applies.  Section 632.32(4) applies to: 
Every policy of insurance subject to this section 
that insures with respect to any motor vehicle 
registered 
or 
principally 
garaged 
in 
this 
state 
against loss resulting from liability imposed by law 
for bodily injury or death suffered by any person 
arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a 
motor vehicle . . . . 
Section 632.32(4m), as stated above, applies to: 
polices that insure with respect to a motor vehicle 
registered 
or 
principally 
garaged 
in 
this 
state 
against loss resulting from liability imposed by law 
for bodily injury or death suffered by a person 
arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a 
motor vehicle . . . . 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
15 
 
"you want to make sure that everything you worked for all your 
life is now protected."  Counsel acknowledged that American 
Family had available underinsured motorist coverage as part of 
an endorsement to its umbrella policies.  Yet, how would 
conscientious consumers know of its existence? 
¶30 The legislature enacted § 632.32(4m) to aid consumers 
in making responsible and informed decisions about the nature 
and amount of insurance coverage they may need.  Requiring 
insurers to provide to their insureds notice of the availability 
of underinsured motorist coverage is not an onerous task.  After 
all, as counsel for American Family noted:  "American Family is 
in the business of selling insurance.  We want to sell these 
policies to those who want them."  Giving the notice of 
availability, as § 632.32(4m) requires, will benefit both the 
insurer and the insured. 
¶31 We turn now to the question of whether, given the 
circumstances presented here, American Family notified the 
Rebernicks of the availability of UIM coverage under their 
umbrella policy pursuant to the statute.  The Rebernicks assert 
that American Family failed to provide the required notice.    
Additionally, the Rebernicks assert that the remedy for American 
Family's failure to provide such notice is that the umbrella 
policy be reformed.  What they mean by this assertion is that 
they should be given the opportunity to retroactively purchase 
UIM coverage under their umbrella policy.  
¶32 Again, the notice requirements in § 632.32(4m) read as 
follows: 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
16 
 
An insurer writing policies [to which these 
notice requirements apply] . . . shall provide to one 
insured under each such insurance policy that goes 
into effect after October 1, 1995, that is written by 
the insurer and that does not include underinsured 
motorist coverage written notice of the availability 
of underinsured motorist coverage, including a brief 
description of the coverage.  An insurer is required 
to provide the notice required under this subdivision 
only one time and in conjunction with the delivery of 
the policy. 
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m)(a)1. (emphasis added).  Thus, if a 
policy under § 632.32(4m) does not already include UIM coverage, 
"an insurer" writing such policies must "provide to one insured" 
under the policy "written notice" of the "availability" of UIM 
coverage, including a "brief description" of such coverage.  Id.  
At the same time, however, "an insurer" is required to provide 
the notice for each such policy "only one time and in 
conjunction with the delivery of the policy."  Id.   
¶33 The facts here reveal that the Rebernicks were 
apparently aware of the availability of UIM coverage before 
receiving any required notice because they had requested such 
coverage in their underlying primary automobile policy before 
receipt of such notice.  Their underlying primary automobile 
policy was issued with $100,000 in UIM coverage.  American 
Family issued that policy on April 29, 2001. 
¶34 There is no dispute that American Family provided the 
Rebernicks with the required notice under § 632.32(4m) for their 
primary automobile policy.  This notice reads as follows: 
SPECIAL NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS 
This special notice is being given in accordance with 
Wisconsin law to advise you of the availability of 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
17 
 
Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage.  If you do not 
presently 
carry 
UIM 
coverage, 
this 
message 
is 
especially important to you. 
Underinsured Motorist coverage provides payment for 
legally collectible damages for bodily injury or death 
if you or any person riding in your vehicle is injured 
or killed in an accident with a vehicle whose driver 
has insurance coverage that is less than the limit of 
your underinsured motorist coverage. 
Please see the actual policy for exact terms and 
conditions. 
Contact your American Family agent if you have 
questions about this coverage. 
Accordingly, on April 29, 2001, American Family had advised the 
Rebernicks of the availability of UIM coverage and had provided 
them with a basic description of the nature of such coverage.  
The terms of the notice do not limit its application to only 
primary or underlying policies. 
¶35 American Family issued the Rebernicks' umbrella policy 
approximately one week later, on May 7, 2001.  Thus, a very 
short period of time had elapsed since the Rebernicks were 
advised of the availability of UIM coverage by the same 
insurance 
company 
that subsequently 
issued 
their umbrella 
policy. 
¶36 In 
addition, 
the 
umbrella 
policy 
contained 
the 
following exclusion:  "Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists.  We 
will not cover any claims which may be made under Uninsured 
Motorists Coverage, Underinsured Motorists Coverage or similar 
coverage, unless this policy is endorsed to provide such 
coverage." 
 As the circuit 
court 
and court 
of appeals 
recognized, this clause in the umbrella policy also alerted the 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
18 
 
Rebernicks that UIM coverage was available under that policy by 
way of an endorsement.  This clause alone would not be enough to 
constitute notice of the availability of UIM coverage in an 
umbrella policy pursuant to § 632.32(4m) because it does not 
contain the statutorily required "brief description of the 
coverage."  This case, however, involves more than just such a 
clause. 
¶37 Considering all of these circumstances in combination, 
we determine that American Family notified the Rebernicks of the 
availability of UIM coverage under their umbrella policy.  Thus, 
we need not determine what remedy would be appropriate if 
American Family had failed to notify the Rebernicks. 
¶38 We caution, however, that the only way for insurance 
companies to be certain that they have provided proper notice 
pursuant to § 632.32(4m) is to separately provide in each policy 
for which notice is required the type of notice American Family 
provided to the Rebernicks in their primary automobile policy.9  
Absent the provision of such notice (or notices, as the 
situation may be), insurers will have no guarantee in future 
cases presenting different facts that they have properly 
                                                 
9 By this, we do not suggest that the court is giving its 
imprimatur to every word used by American Family in the notice 
or that American Family's phrasing is the only permissible 
phrasing for such notices under § 632.32(4m). 
No. 
2004AP487   
 
19 
 
notified insureds of the availability of UIM coverage pursuant 
to § 632.32(4m).10 
IV 
¶39 In sum, we determine that American Family was required 
to notify the Rebernicks of the availability of UIM coverage 
under their umbrella policy pursuant to § 632.32(4m).  However, 
we also determine that, given the particular circumstances of 
this case, American Family notified the Rebernicks of the 
availability of UIM coverage under that policy.  Thus, we need 
not address what remedy would be appropriate had American Family 
failed to notify the Rebernicks of the availability of UIM 
coverage under their umbrella policy.  We affirm the court of 
appeals. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
                                                 
10 We note that this case deals with § 632.32(4m)(a)1., 
pertaining to policies, like those here, that went into effect 
after October 1, 1995.   
No. 
2004AP487.lbb 
   
 
1 
 
¶40 LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.   (dissenting).  The majority 
concludes that American Family was required to notify the 
Rebernicks of the availability of Underinsured Motorists (UIM) 
coverage 
under 
their 
umbrella 
policy 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m).  Majority op., ¶2.  I agree with this 
conclusion and join that portion of the opinion.   
¶41 However, I disagree with the majority's determination 
that American Family provided the required notice.  Id.  I 
conclude that American Family failed to meet the explicit 
statutory 
notice 
requirements 
established 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m).  Because the proper remedy, if any, for 
American Family's failure to provide the notice cannot be 
determined based on the present record, I would reverse the 
court of appeals and remand this matter to the circuit court for 
further proceedings.  I therefore respectfully dissent. 
I 
¶42 The 
majority's 
summary 
of 
the 
facts 
accurately 
reflects the record in this case.  Majority op., ¶¶3-7.  In 
short, the Rebernicks had separately purchased a primary 
automobile insurance policy and a $1 million umbrella policy 
through American Family Insurance.  The Rebernicks had purchased 
UIM coverage for their primary automobile insurance policy, but 
the terms of an exclusion in their umbrella policy purchased one 
week later indicated that American Family "will not cover any 
claims" made under Underinsured Motorists Coverage "unless this 
policy is endorsed to provide" UIM coverage.  The Rebernicks 
assert that they are entitled to retroactively purchase UIM 
No. 
2004AP487.lbb 
   
 
2 
 
coverage under their umbrella policy because American Family had 
failed to provide them with notice of the availability or 
description of UIM coverage in the umbrella policy as required 
under Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m). 
 
II 
¶43 Whether 
American 
Family 
adequately 
notified 
the 
Rebernicks of the availability of UIM coverage under their 
umbrella 
policy 
requires 
the 
application 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m) to undisputed facts.  The interpretation 
and application of a statute to undisputed facts is ordinarily a 
question of law subject to independent appellate review.  Phelps 
v. Physicians Ins. Co., 2005 WI 85, ¶25, 282 Wis. 2d 69, 698 
N.W.2d 643. 
III 
¶44 Whether an insurer is required to provide a separate 
written 
notice 
for 
each 
insurance 
policy 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m), including the umbrella policy at issue 
in this case, is a matter of statutory interpretation.  I agree 
with and, for purposes of this dissent, adopt the majority's 
legal analysis regarding the proper interpretation of what is 
required under the statute.  Majority op., ¶¶11-31.  Under 
§ 632.32(4m): 
An insurer writing policies [to which these 
notice requirements apply] . . . shall provide to one 
insured under each such insurance policy that goes 
into effect after October 1, 1995, that is written by 
the insurer and that does not include underinsured 
motorist coverage written notice of the availability 
of underinsured motorist coverage, including a brief 
description of the coverage.  An insurer is required 
No. 
2004AP487.lbb 
   
 
3 
 
to provide the notice required under this subdivision 
only one time and in conjunction with the delivery of 
the policy. 
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m)(a)1.(emphasis added).  If an insured's 
policy does not already include UIM coverage, the language of 
§ 632.32(4m)(a)1. requires that an insurer provide an insured 
with written notice, that the notice inform the insured that UIM 
coverage is available and include a brief description of the 
available coverage, and that the notice be provided when the 
policy is delivered to the insured.  The statutory language also 
makes plain that an insurer must provide the notice for each 
policy to which the statute applies. 
¶45 It is undisputed that when the Rebernicks were issued 
their underlying auto policy on April 29, 2001, American Family 
provided the Rebernicks with the required notice for that 
policy.  That notice informed the Rebernicks of the availability 
of UIM coverage: 
SPECIAL NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS 
This special notice is being given in accordance with 
Wisconsin law to advise you of the availability of 
Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage.  If you do not 
presently 
carry 
UIM 
coverage, 
this 
message 
is 
especially important to you. 
Underinsured Motorist coverage provides payment for 
legally collectible damages for bodily injury or death 
if you or any person riding in your vehicle is injured 
or killed in an accident with a vehicle whose driver 
has insurance coverage that is less than the limit of 
your underinsured motorist coverage. 
Please see the actual policy for exact terms and 
conditions. 
Contact your American Family agent if you have 
questions about this coverage. 
No. 
2004AP487.lbb 
   
 
4 
 
¶46 However, when American Family issued the Rebernicks' 
umbrella policy on May 7, 2001, approximately one week after the 
Rebernicks obtained their primary automobile policy, American 
Family 
failed 
to 
include 
any 
"written 
notice" 
of 
the 
availability of UIM coverage, "in conjunction with the delivery 
of 
the 
[umbrella] 
policy," 
as 
required 
by 
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m)(a)1. 
 
Additionally, 
American 
Family 
provided no description of UIM coverage with the umbrella 
policy.   
¶47 The majority reasons that only a short period of time 
had passed since the Rebernicks had received the required 
written notice for their separate but related underlying policy, 
and therefore the Rebernicks were aware of the nature of UIM 
coverage available under an American Family policy.  Majority 
op., ¶36. 
¶48 In addition, the umbrella policy itself contained an 
exclusion provision, which notified the insured that UM/UIM 
coverage was not included unless "this" policy was endorsed to 
provide such coverage.  According to the majority, the exclusion 
provision 
contained 
in 
the 
umbrella 
policy 
alerted 
the 
Rebernicks that UIM coverage was available under the umbrella 
policy.  Majority op., ¶37. 
¶49 Although the majority concedes that the exclusion 
provision alone would not constitute notice, it concludes that, 
in view of all the facts, American Family substantially complied 
with the written notice requirement.  Majority op., ¶38.  The 
majority has essentially determined that American Family's 
No. 
2004AP487.lbb 
   
 
5 
 
compliance 
with 
the 
notice 
requirements 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m) was good enough with respect to the 
Rebernicks' umbrella policy.  Id. 
¶50 I disagree.  This is not horseshoes, and close is not 
good enough.  The majority disregards the plain language of the 
statute.  American Family failed to notify the Rebernicks of the 
availability or description of UIM coverage under their umbrella 
policy 
pursuant 
to 
the 
explicit 
requirements 
of 
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m).  Consequently, I agree with the court 
of appeals' dissent that American Family failed to meet the 
notice requirements for the Rebernicks' umbrella policy.     
¶51 American Family did not provide the Rebernicks with a 
written description of UIM coverage "in conjunction with the 
delivery" 
of 
their 
umbrella 
policy, 
as 
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m)(a)1. requires.  Thus, American Family 
did not provide the required "written notice," which must 
include a "brief description of [UIM] coverage."  The statute 
requires 
that 
the 
notice 
be 
provided 
"under 
each 
such . . . policy."  (Emphasis added.)  The fact that the 
Rebernicks may have been generally aware of the nature of UIM 
coverage based on a previous notice is insufficient under the 
plain language of the statute. 
¶52 In 
addition, 
the 
notice 
of 
exclusion 
in 
the 
Rebernicks' 
umbrella 
policy 
cannot 
constitute 
sufficient 
"written notice" of the "availability" of UIM coverage.  The 
exclusion merely indicates that UIM claims will not be covered 
No. 
2004AP487.lbb 
   
 
6 
 
unless "this" policy is endorsed to provide such coverage.1  The 
exclusion does not indicate that separate UIM coverage is 
available, nor does it describe the additional UIM coverage that 
is available.  This notice of exclusion does not satisfy the 
notice requirements under Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m)(a)1.   
¶53 Moreover, under the facts here, a reasonable insured 
may have been confused as to just what the exclusion really 
meant.  On the one hand, a reasonable insured may have been led 
to believe that UIM coverage was not available under the 
umbrella policy, despite the exclusion.  A reasonable insured 
might infer that such coverage was not available under the 
policy because the insurance company did not provide the same 
separate "SPECIAL NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS" of the availability 
of UIM coverage that it provided with the underlying automobile 
policy.  Stated another way, a reasonable insured might believe 
that the absence of the "special notice" with the umbrella 
policy indicated that UIM coverage was not available under that 
policy.   
¶54 On the other hand, a reasonable insured may have been 
led to believe that UIM coverage was already provided under the 
policy 
precisely 
because 
of 
the 
"SPECIAL 
NOTICE 
TO 
                                                 
1 American Family asserts that the language of exclusion 21 
of the umbrella policy puts the insured on notice that excess 
UM/UIM coverage can be purchased.  The actual language of the 
exclusion provides: 
We will not cover any claims which may be made under 
Uninsured Motorists Coverage, Underinsured Motorists 
Coverage or similar coverage, unless this policy is 
endorsed to provide such coverage.      
No. 
2004AP487.lbb 
   
 
7 
 
POLICYHOLDERS" of the availability of UIM coverage that was 
provided with the underlying automobile policy.  After being 
given notice of the existence of UIM coverage, the policyholders 
(Rebernicks) elected to have such coverage.  Since the insurance 
company provided no new "SPECIAL NOTICE," a reasonable insured 
may have concluded that the purchase of UIM coverage made one 
week earlier was sufficient for purposes of electing UIM 
coverage in the umbrella policy.      
¶55 I agree with the majority that the best way for 
insurance companies to be certain that they have provided proper 
notice pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m) is to comply with the 
words of the statute.  Majority op., ¶39.  In fact, I assert an 
insurer is required to comply with the words of the statute.  An 
insurer must separately provide written notice of both the 
availability of, as well as a description of, the available UIM 
coverage with each policy the insurer issues to an insured.  
Neither was done here. 
¶56 The question becomes what is the proper remedy for 
American Family's failure to provide the required notice for the 
Rebernicks' umbrella policy.  As the majority notes, the 
Rebernicks assert that the remedy is that the umbrella policy be 
reformed, meaning they should be given the opportunity to 
retroactively purchase UIM coverage under their umbrella policy.  
Majority op., ¶32. 
¶57 Under Wis. Stat. § 631.15(3m), an insurance policy 
"that violates a statute or rule is enforceable against the 
insurer as if it conformed to the statute or rule."  Thus, 
No. 
2004AP487.lbb 
   
 
8 
 
§ 631.15(3m) 
provides, 
in 
effect, 
for 
reformation 
of 
an 
insurance policy that violates a statute.  Yet, application of 
the statutory language to the facts here does not result in a 
straightforward answer to the question of what remedy, if any, 
is appropriate.  
¶58 If 
American 
Family 
had 
complied 
with 
Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m) in the issuance of the umbrella policy, 
the Rebernicks would have received the proper written notice in 
conjunction with their umbrella policy.  However, § 632.15(3m) 
cannot answer the question of whether, had American Family 
provided the notice, the Rebernicks would have purchased UIM 
coverage in their umbrella policy. 
¶59 Likewise, even assuming that they would have purchased 
such coverage, we cannot be certain on this record of whether 
(or to what extent) the coverage would have applied.  American 
Family argues that even if the policy is reformed, a remand is 
necessary to determine if any additional exclusions or reducing 
clauses would apply here.  It asserts in its brief: 
It is undisputed that Mr. Rebernick was acting within 
the scope of his employment at the time of his 
accident.  American Family's UIM endorsement contains 
a reducing clause which allows American Family to 
reduce the limit of its UIM coverage by the amount of 
any worker's compensation payments that have been 
made. 
¶60 In short, the remedy question in this case involves 
factual issues that cannot be resolved based on the current 
record.   
No. 
2004AP487.lbb 
   
 
9 
 
¶61 Unlike other cases where reformation of the policy 
under 
Wis. Stat. § 632.15(3m) 
may 
resolve 
the 
matter, 
reformation in this case would only be the beginning.  In other 
cases, the applicability or validity of an exclusion, reducing 
clause, "other insurance" clause, or other policy provision may 
become readily apparent on the existing record.  See, e.g., 
Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 2006 WI 13 ¶¶7-8, ___ 
Wis. 2d ___, 709 N.W.2d 46 (applying § 632.15(3m) to determine 
that the invalidity of an "other insurance" clause under 
§ 632.32(3)(a) controlled which of two insurance companies paid 
the first $100,000 in coverage). 
¶62 In this case, however, we are not presented with a 
policy that is easily "conformed to the statute or rule," 
Wis. Stat. § 632.15(3m), in a manner that readily dictates the 
ultimate remedy.  Rather, we are dealing only with notice of the 
availability of UIM coverage.  Lack of such notice will not 
always translate into payment of insurance proceeds.  
¶63 Accordingly, I would remand for further proceedings 
for the circuit court to determine what, if any, remedy is 
appropriate. 
IV 
¶64 Because American Family failed to meet the explicit 
statutory requirements under Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m), I conclude 
that American Family did not provide the Rebernicks with the 
required notice in the issuance of the umbrella policy.  In 
addition, because the proper remedy, if any, for American 
Family's failure to provide the notice cannot be determined 
No. 
2004AP487.lbb 
   
 
10 
 
based on the present record, I would reverse the court of 
appeals and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings 
consistent with this opinion.  I therefore respectfully dissent. 
¶65 I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. 
ABRAHAMSON joins this dissenting opinion. 
 
 
 
No. 
2004AP487.lbb 
   
 
 
 
1