Opinion ID: 2120473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Except as Otherwise Provided Herein

Text: ¶ 39 London Market asserts that its policy does otherwise provide that there is no duty to defend. It contends that by omitting a promise to defend from the insuring agreement, it otherwise provided that there would be no duty to defend. ¶ 40 This argument is circular. As discussed above, the insuring agreement that London Market relies upon refers the insured to the follow form provision and to the terms of the underlying Travelers policies. Although London Market's insuring agreement does not promise a defense, the follow form provision incorporates the terms, definitions, exclusions, and conditions of the Travelers policies. One of those terms is Travelers' duty to defend, a duty that the London Market policy does not disclaim. ¶ 41 The phrase except as otherwise provided herein suggests that to otherwise provide, there must be a provision. London Market can point to nothing except the void in its own agreementan agreement which by its own terms is incomplete and incorporates those provisions in the Travelers policies that are not excepted. Due to the nature of the follow form provision, London Market cannot rely on the absence of a provision as otherwise providing that there would be no duty to defend. ¶ 42 Given that Travelers imposes a duty to defend and London Market's silence regarding that duty, a reasonable person in the position of the insured would interpret London Market's policy as incorporating the duty to defend found in the Travelers policies. Although it is not certain whether London Market intended to provide a duty to defend when it drafted the policy, we do not construe insurance policies based on what we believe the intentions of the insurer may have been. Frost, 257 Wis.2d 80, ¶ 20, 654 N.W.2d 225. Accordingly, we refuse to rewrite insurance contracts by filling in gaps left in the draftsmanship. [9] Rather, we look to the policy language itself, as it would be understood by a reasonable insured. ¶ 43 Even if we were to determine that it was unclear whether the follow form's duty to defend was incorporated into the London Market policy, given London Market's silence regarding defense, we would conclude that the policy language should be construed to incorporate the duty to defend. It is axiomatic that policy language which is unclear and susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation is ambiguous and is construed in favor of coverage. Plastics Eng'g Co., 315 Wis.2d 556, ¶ 27, 759 N.W.2d 613. In interpreting the policy language, we conclude that London Market had a duty to defend. ¶ 44 Our interpretation is supported by case law. In another case addressing an excess insurer's contractual duty to defend, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals examined an excess policy containing a follow form provision. See Home Ins. Co. v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 902 F.2d 1111 (2d Cir.1990). Similar to London Market's policy, the policy in Home stated that it was subject to the same warranties, terms and conditions [as the underlying policy] (except as otherwise provided herein)[.] ¶ 45 In that case, the underlying policy covered payments for defense costs. However, Home's policy expressly excluded all expenses and Costs and further defined costs to include legal expenses. Id. at 1113. Given Home's express exclusion of defense costs, the Second Circuit stated that the underlying policy conflict[ed] with the subject Home policy which ... excludes from payment those expenses and costs covered by the underlying policy. [10] Id. at 1114. ¶ 46 Here, unlike in Home, there is no conflict between the Travelers policies and the London Market policy with respect to the duty to defend. As discussed above, the Travelers policies provide a duty to defend, and there is nothing in the London Market policy that otherwise provides that there will be no defense.