Opinion ID: 351867
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ambiguity of the Contract

Text: 17 Plaintiffs argue that even if the policy does not clearly show the parties intended to set a $300,000 limit on all recoveries for passenger injuries, the insurance contract is ambiguous and that (w)hatever ambiguity exists in a contract of insurance is resolved in favor of the insured. Garriguenc v. Love, supra, 67 Wis.2d at 135, 226 N.W.2d at 417. If the contract in this case were ambiguous, we would agree with plaintiffs' argument. However, merely being able to conjure up a remotely possible second interpretation is not sufficient to invoke the ambiguity rule. If it were, no contract would be safe from modification by construction. While there might have been a way to make the passenger liability limit more clear, we do not feel that the policy language was reasonably or fairly susceptible to more than one construction and therefore was not ambiguous. Garriguenc v. Love,supra (emphasis added). See also Westerman v. Richardson, supra 43 Wis.2d at 595, 168 N.W.2d at 854 ((w)hile it may be that there are ways to make the premium schedule clearer than it is . . . (t)here is no ambiguity.) (footnote omitted). 18 For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 19 AFFIRMED.