Opinion ID: 1306189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Type of Policy.

Text: United maintains that the omnibus coverage statute does not apply to a comprehensive liability policy which only insures motor vehicles operated on private premises or ways adjoining thereto. It has been stressed that this policy is modeled after the form drafted by the National Bureau of Casualty Underwriters which has been on file for the past twenty years with the commissioner of insurance. During that time the commissioner has never questioned the absence of an omnibus coverage clause to meet the requirement of sec. 204.30 (3), Stats. Long-continued administrative interpretation of a statute is a significant aid in statutory interpretation. [3] Here there is no showing of a positive act of administrative interpretation but only a passive failure to act. Disregarding this feature, administrative interpretation is only of significance where there is an ambiguity in the statute. [4] It cannot overcome the plain wording of a statute where there is no ambiguity. We find no ambiguity in sub. (3) of sec. 204.30, Stats., with respect to the type of policy to which it is applicable. The commencing words, No such policy . . . plainly relate back to the type of policy described in sub. (1), which reads: No policy of insurance against loss or damage resulting from accident or injury to a person, and for which the insured is liable, or against loss or damage to property caused by animals or by any motor vehicle, and for which the insured is liable, . . . We interpret this language to apply to any policy which extends coverage to damage caused by motor vehicle for which the insured is liable. It is conceded that the instant policy does insure the city of Hartford against claims for damage caused by motor vehicle accidents on the city's premises and adjoining ways. [5] We deem it immaterial that this coverage is provided by a comprehensive liability policy rather than one confined to coverage of motor vehicles. This interpretation of sec. 204.30 (3), Stats., is consistent with that given the direct-liability statute, sec. 204.30 (4). [6]