Opinion ID: 1968815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Waiver of Immunity by Purchase of Liability Insurance.

Text: Both the hospital and the blood center had purchased liability insurance policies which were in force at the time in question. The plaintiff contends that the terms of these policies or endorsements thereto constitute a waiver of the defense of charitable immunity under the rule of Marshall v. Green Bay (1963), 18 Wis. (2d) 496, 118 N. W. (2d) 715. In the Marshall v. Green Bay Case it appears that the city purchased a liability indemnity policy which specifically provided that the insurer would not raise the defense of governmental immunity. We stated in Marshall v. Green Bay, supra, at pages 501 and 502: This important provision of the liability policy is commonly understood to mean the insurer, who is in control of the defense, will not raise such defense on behalf of the insured against the claimant. . . . We construe this agreement to be a waiver of governmental immunity by the city recognized and agreed to by the insurer. Such immunity cannot be resuscitated by subsequent action of the city or the insurer, or both. . . . We do not hold, however, a municipality waives its immunity when it takes out a liability policy which does not contain the condition or agreement to refrain from raising the defense of governmental immunity. The policy issued to the hospital contained the following provisions: I Hospital Professional Liability To pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of injury, including death, sustained by any person, arising out of malpractice, error or mistake committed during the policy period (a) in rendering or failing to render to such person, or to the person inflicting the injury, medical, surgical, dental or nursing treatment, including the furnishing of food or beverages in connection therewith, or (b) in furnishing or dispensing drugs or medical, dental or surgical supplies or appliances if the injury occurs after the Named Insured has relinquished possession thereof to others, or (c) in handling or performing autopsies on deceased human bodies. By these provisions the insurer agrees to pay on behalf of the hospital those claims that the hospital was legally obligated to pay. The hospital was not legally obligated to pay claims barred by defense of charitable immunity. Nowhere does a condition or agreement appear to refrain from raising the defense of charitable immunity. The hospital and the insurer, either singly or together, have not, therefore, agreed to waive the defense of charitable immunity. The endorsement on the policy purchased by the blood center is as follows: