Opinion ID: 2996994
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: all amounts paid by or on behalf of any person or

Text: organization that may be legally responsible for the bodily injury for which they payment is made, including, but not limited to, any amounts paid under the bodily injury liability coverage of this or any other insurance policy. (emphasis added). Finding that Allstate may not offset benefits paid under the Bontempo policy from payments it owes to Keca, the district court accepted the reasoning of a Wisconsin appellate court decision that addressed a similar question. See Janssen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 643 N.W.2d 857 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). Janssen held that language in a reducing clause similar to the one at issue in this case did not permit the insurer to reduce its liability for uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage. Allstate argues that we are not bound by Janssen, since it is a lower state court decision, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue. However, in situations where a state supreme court 12 Nos. 03-3702 & 03-3835 has not reached an issue, the rulings of the intermediate court control, unless there is a persuasive indication that the highest court would decide the issue differently. See Lexington Ins. Co. v. Rugg & Knopp, Inc., 165 F.3d 1087, 1090 (7th Cir. 1999). See also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Triangle Indus., Inc., 957 F.2d 1153, 1156 (4th Cir. 1992) (noting that in circumstances where a state’s highest court has not spoken on an issue decisions from “the state’s intermediate appellate court decisions ‘constitute the next best indica of what state law is,’ although such decisions ‘may be disregarded if the federal court is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise.’ ”) (quoting 19 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4507, at 94-95 (1982)). In this case, we are not persuaded that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would take a position different from the one set forth in Janssen. The court in Janssen supported its decision with precedent set by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Employers Health Ins. v. General Cas. Co., 409 N.W.2d 172, 177 (Wis. 1991). Employer’s Health held that the plaintiff’s subrogation clause that referred to a “responsible third party,” clearly meant “a party responsible for the insured’s injury and not to an insurer providing uninsured motorist coverage to the insured.” Id. Adopting this reasoning, the Janssen court concluded that the phrase “responsible third party” was similar to the term “legally responsible.” 643 N.W.2d at 863. After drawing this comparison, the Janssen court held that the term “legally responsible” did not encompass “contractually responsible” (i.e., UM/UIM carriers) parties. Id. Therefore, the UM carrier was not entitled to reduce benefits by payments from other UM/UIM policies. Id. In the absence of authority from Wisconsin’s highest court or a compelling indication that it would hold to the contrary, there is no reason for us to deviate from this reasoned Nos. 03-3702 & 03-3835 13 position. Accordingly, the district court correctly required Allstate to pay an additional $50,000 in UIM benefits under the Keca policy.