Opinion ID: 1891087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Return an SR-21.

Text: Counsel for both parties cite an article by Walter M. Bjork of Madison, entitled, The New SR-21 Look in Wisconsin, published in the February, 1958, issue of the Wisconsin Bar Bulletin, pp. 12-21. This scholarly article states that (p. 14): . . . the company need not file an SR-21 unless it wishes to assert one or more of the seven statements provided on the form. . . . The requirement of the new law that the form only need be filed where the particular matters are sought to be raisedand if the form is not filed, the policy is presumed to have been in effect and have covered both the owner and the operatorshould serve to decrease the number of erroneous filings due to administrative error. It may be that the presumption will work against the company, however, because inactivity in penalized. As already noted in the statement of facts one of the seven statements on the form is [] No automobile liability policy was in effect on the date of the accident. Sec. 344.15 (4), Stats., reads in apart as follows: The commissioner shall assume that an automobile liability policy or bond as described in this section was in effect and applied to both the owner and operator with respect to the accident unless the insurance company or surety company notifies the commissioner otherwise within thirty days from the mailing to the company of that portion of the report pertaining to the automobile liability policy or bond. In a footnote to New SR-21 Look in Wisconsin, supra, it is observed that (p. 23): Section 344.15 (4) [Stats.] . . . which provides that the commissioner shall assume that an automobile liability policy was in effect and applied to both the owner and operator with respect to the accident unless the company notifies the commissioner otherwise within the thirty-day period. The statute refers to Item 4 on the back of the SR-21 form and it would appear that unless the company corrects the form by checking Item 4 it will also be estopped in this fourth respect. However, language in Behringer v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. (1957), 275 Wis. 586, 594, 82 N. W. (2d) 915, gives expression to general policy considerations where, as in this case, it is the named insured and not a third-party beneficiary who is attempting to recover from this insurer. In the Behringer Case it is stated: However, in the Pulvermacher Case [ Pulvercnacher v. Sharp (1957), 275 Wis. 371, 82 N. W. (2d) 163] the injured person, who is the third-party beneficiary that the Safety Responsibility Law was designed to protect, was the named insured under the policy. The Safety Responsibility Law should not be so construed that the filing of an SR-21 would give such named insured the right to recover upon his own policy of insurance when he had already expressly contracted in such policy that there would be no coverage as to his own damages. This is because the SR-21 is filed to protect such named insured, as owner of the insured vehicle, against having his vehicle registration suspended. In this respect it is a filing for and in behalf of the insured and he should not be permitted to use it as a weapon against the insurance company. The Safety Responsibility Law was designed to protect the third-party beneficiary, not the named insured. The relationship between insurer and insured is to be found in the policy which binds them and not in the Safety Responsibility Law. The defenses available to the insurer under the policy are not affected by its failure to return an SR-21 to the motor vehicle department. That agency becomes an interested party in the proceedings only when a third-party beneficiary, not a party to the insurance contract, becomes involved in the proceedings. Where, as in this case, the only parties litigating the issues are the insurer and the insured, their rights shall be determined by their contract and not by the provisions of the Safety Responsibility Law.