Opinion ID: 1968815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Municipal and Charitable Organizations

Text: It is agreed that in any claim or suit for damages covered by the policy, except by written request of the named insured by its duly authorized officer, the company will not use, either in the adjustment of claims or in the defense of suits against the insured, the immunity of the insured from tort liability. This endorsement is executed by The Travelers Insurance Company as respects insurance afforded by that company only; it is executed by The Travelers Indemnity Company as respects insurance afforded by that company only. Under this endorsement the directors of the blood center specifically reserved to themselves on behalf of the blood center the right to invoke the defense of charitable immunity. The affidavits and pleadings in support of the motion for summary judgment sufficiently show that the blood center did invoke its defense of charitable immunity and that the insurer was informed of this election. [3] The provisions of this endorsement are likewise within the exception stated in Marshall v. Green Bay, supra , and charitable immunity was not waived by the purchase of liability insurance. We agree with the trial court. Upon the record the defendants' motions for summary judgment, with costs, must be granted. By the Court. Judgment affirmed. GORDON, J. ( dissenting in part ). I am unable to agree with the majority's opinion insofar as it construes the insurance policy of the Milwaukee Blood Center as not constituting a waiver of immunity. While I was one of those who dissented in Marshall v. Green Bay (1963), 18 Wis. (2d) 496, 118 N. W. (2d) 715, I believe that the holding of that case is controlling here. Under the heading Waiver of Immunity Endorsement, the Milwaukee Blood Center's policy contained the following provision: It is agreed that in any claim or suit for damages covered by the policy, except by written request of the named insured by its duly authorized officer, the company will not use, either in the adjustment of claims or in the defense of suits against the insured, the immunity of the insured from tort liability. The waiver of immunity which this court found had arisen as a result of the insurance policy in the Marshall Case is not reasonably distinguishable, in my opinion, from the foregoing waiver of immunity which appears in the policy of insurance of the Milwaukee Blood Center.