Opinion ID: 3181575
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Coverage, General Principles

Text: ¶20 We interpret insurance policies from the perspective of a reasonable insured. Acuity v. Bagadia, 2008 WI 62, ¶13, 310 Wis. 2d 197, 750 N.W.2d 817. When the language of an insurance contract is unambiguous, we apply its plain and ordinary meaning. Preisler, 360 Wis. 2d 129, ¶18. ¶21 However, if terms of an insurance contract are fairly susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the policy is ambiguous. Id., ¶19 (quoting Hirschhorn v. AutoOwners Ins. Co., 2012 WI 20, ¶23, 338 Wis. 2d 761, 809 N.W.2d 529). Policy language is not ambiguous merely because more than one dictionary definition exists or the parties disagree about its meaning. Id. Similarly, policy language is not ambiguous merely because courts have come to differing interpretations. Peace v. Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co., 228 Wis. 2d 106, ¶60, 596 N.W.2d 429 (1999). If the policy is ambiguous, the court's construction is constrained and ambiguities are construed against the insurer, in favor of coverage. Hirschhorn, 338 Wis. 2d 761, ¶23. 10 Nos. 2013AP613 & 2013AP687 ¶22 Bearing the foregoing in mind, we determine whether the policies provide coverage for incorporation of a defective ingredient into supplement tablets. Our procedure for determining whether coverage exists under an insurance policy follows three steps. First, we examine the facts of the insured's claim to decide whether the policy makes an initial grant of coverage. Preisler, 360 Wis. 2d 129, ¶22. If the policy terms clearly do not cover the claim, generally, our analysis ends. Id. However, if the claim . . . triggers a potential grant of coverage, we secondly examine whether any of the policy's exclusions preclude coverage for that claim. Id. And third, if an exclusion precludes coverage, we analyze exceptions to the exclusion to determine whether any exception reinstates coverage. Id.