Opinion ID: 1923690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: review of issue of law

Text: I find the majority's characterization of the issue as one of fact surprising. Ordinarily the determination of whether a rule contravenes a statute involves a comparison of the language of the statute and of the rule and an interpretation of the rule and the statute. These questions are generally viewed as questions of law for purposes of judicial review. Peterson v. National Resources Board, 94 Wis.2d 587, 288 N.W.2d 845 (1980). Inasmuch as the issue in this case is viewed by the majority as being whether the rule is false or misleading under sec. 628.34, Stats. 1979-80, the issue can be also characterized as the application of a statutory (legal) concept (false or misleading) to an undisputed fact situation (the language of the rule). This kind of issue, sometimes characterized as a mixed question of fact and law, has generally, but not invariably, been viewed by this court as a question of law for purposes of judicial review. Nottleson v. DILHR, 94 Wis.2d 106, 115-117, 287 N.W.2d 763 (1980). [16] The court's analysis in Wawszkiewicz v. Department of the Treasury, 480 F. Supp. 739 (D. D.C. 1979), to determine whether the contents of a rule were misleading is instructive. Consumers attacked a Department of Treasury regulation allowing wine labels to carry the name Chardonnay without disclosing that other grape varieties may compose up to 25 percent of the volume. Consumers attacked the regulation, arguing that the label was misleading because it was incomplete and arguing further that the regulation should identify the precise percentage of all grape varieties. The Treasury was empowered by statute to require wines to carry labels in conformity with regulations which prohibit deception of the consumer and which prohibit irrespective of falsity matters which are likely to mislead the consumer. The court began its analysis by saying that the issue whether the label permitted by the regulation was misleading was one of statutory construction and therefore a question of law. [17] The court, giving the words on the label the ordinary meaning which the consumer would give them, determined that the clear implication to the consumer of the label bearing only the word Chardonnay was that the wine was made from that grape variety and no other. The court therefore concluded that the label and rule were misleading and were, therefore, as a matter of law beyond the statutory authority of the Department. [18] The Treasury has no statutory authority or discretion to sanction the transmittal of false and misleading information. Using this approach, this court need not defer to the decision of the Commissioner or of the circuit court, and I conclude that the Buyer's Guide and Policy Summary do not in and of themselves mislead the ordinary consumer. Looking at the words of the Guide and Summary for their ordinary meaning and as they would ordinarily be understood by a purchaser of life insurance of average intelligence, I conclude that the clear implication of the Guide and Summary is that cost determination of life insurance is a complex process involving many factors which the cautious consumer must evaluate. For example, the Summary states that to find a low cost policy, compare cost index figures, not just premiums. This language of the Summary is not limited to the surrender cost index. The Summary does set forth the surrender cost index for the policy because a policy with a lower Surrender Cost Index is likely to be a better buy. This statement does not say or mean that a policy with a lower Surrender Cost Index is always a better buy. The utility of the Cost Surrender Index is stated in a qualified manner in both the Summary and in the Guide. Repeatedly the consumer is told that the cost surrender index applies only if the consumer surrenders the policy, not if the consumer dies. The consumer is told that dividends are not guaranteed. The Summary expressly states that the Surrender Cost Index assumes that the policy is surrendered for its cash value 10 or 20 years in the future. Death prior to these surrender dates may alter the cost comparisons. Figures for participating policies are based on illustrated dividends which are not guaranteed. Aetna is right: The policy with a lower cost surrender index may not always be a better buy. But the record shows that in the vast majority of cases the policy with a lower Cost Surrender Index will be the better buy  whether the policy is surrendered or terminated by death. This is not a case of an agency labeling an 85 percent meat frankfurter as All Meat, [19] or an agency labeling wine made in part of a variety of grapes as Chardonnay [20] or an agency labeling a ham with 10 percent water as Imitation Ham. [21] There are differences between the food labels and the Guide and Summary in the nature of information presented and in the market context in which these communications are provided to the consumer. The food labels purport to describe the product the consumer is buying. The labels are not honest, straight-forward or truthful; the ordinary purchaser is not getting the goods the label describes. These food labels, read between the shelf and the cash register, are the final and only information required to be made available to the consumer. No sales person licensed by the State of Wisconsin is present and authorized to explain the label or the intricacies of the contents of the package or to provide further information. In the instant case, the Guide and Summary do not purport to advise the consumer whether the policy presented is the cheapest policy available for that consumer. The Guide and Summary do not predict the cost of a particular policy for a particular consumer. The true cost of the policy can be determined not at the date of purchase but only after the fact, that is at death, maturity of the policy, or at surrender of the policy. The Guide and Summary explain how consumers can go about estimating the cost of a policy. The Guide and Summary give the consumer a short course in cost disclosure and comparison shopping. This short course can be supplemented by the licensed salesperson. Unlike the food labels, the Guide and Summary do not contain any factual misstatements and they are not rendered false and misleading by what they fail to include. These documents on their face are hedged with sufficient qualifications and disclaimers to save them from such an attack. No purchaser of a life insurance policy of ordinary education and intelligence reading the documents could think that the SCI supplies all the information the purchaser needs to know or that the SCI is the final or only answer to comparison shopping. I therefore conclude that the Summary and Guide are not as a matter of law misleading.