Court Opinion

ID: 9738547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:55:54.395305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.835443
License: Public Domain

JANINE P. GESKE, J.
(dissenting). The only issue in this case is whether an unambiguous reducing clause in an underinsured motorist (UIM) policy should be enforced. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the reducing clauses in the UIM policies issued by American Family are valid and applicable to the facts of this case.
*206The facts are undisputed. Matthiesen and Wild were involved in an automobile accident which resulted in Wild's death and bodily injuries to Matthie-sen, valued in excess of $500,000. Continental Casualty, Wild's insurer, paid Matthiesen $300,000. A dispute arose when Matthiesen sought to recover UIM coverage from American Family. Matthiesen had purchased two policies from American Family, with liability limits of $100,000 for each declared vehicle. American Family denied Matthiesen coverage when Continental Casualty paid more than the value of the UIM policies, stating that application of the policies' reducing clauses limited its liability. The reducing clauses state that liability will be reduced by "[a] payment made or amount payable by or on behalf of any person or organization which may be legally liable, or under any collectible auto liability insurance, for loss caused by an accident with an underinsured motor vehicle."
The policy language describing the limits of liability is neither ambiguous nor confusing: Matthiesen received payment from Continental Casualty in excess of the American Family policy limits; therefore, Mat-thiesen is not entitled to recovery. The court of appeals correctly held that the term "limits of liability" is an unequivocal and unambiguous phrase specifically set forth in the policies at $100,000.1 Thus, when Continental Casualty paid Matthiesen $300,000, it extinguished any liability of American Family to its insured, Matthiesen, for UIM coverage. Application of the unambiguous reducing clauses in this case negates *207any need to invoke the stacking statute, § 631.43, Stats. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that JUSTICE JON P. WILCOX joins this dissenting opinion.

 See Smith v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 151 Wis. 2d 542, 548, 444 N.W.2d 465 (Ct. App. 1989), aff'd 155 Wis. 2d 808, 456 N.W.2d 597 (1990).