Court Opinion

ID: 9689400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:30:11.740589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:47.674588
License: Public Domain

SCHUDSON, J.
(dissenting). The appellants argue that while the policy requires that a notice of legal process be "received" to be deemed a "claim [] first made," the policy does not require that "a demand for money" be received. Thus, they contend, they prevail under the policy's unambiguous terms. The appellants are correct.
The policy provides that "the term 'claims first made' shall mean . . . that a demand for money or services has been made against the Insured." The majority, in effect, re-writes this provision stating that "[a] common sense reading of the plain language of this phrase leads to only one reasonable conclusion — that the insured must have notice of the 'demand for money or services' for the claim to be made." Majority op. at 419 (emphasis added).
*422Why? On what basis does the majority add "must have notice" — an apparent requirement that the insured receive the demand for money — in the absence of any policy language requiring that? The majority does not explain. On what basis does the majority add "must have notice" when, in the preceding clause of the policy, a "has received notice" requirement is included. Does the majority believe the drafters simply forgot to include this requirement in the next clause? The majority does not explain.
The appellants also argue that if the policy is ambiguous, it should be construed to support their position. The appellants cite substantial Wisconsin authorities applying the "mail-box" rule to a variety of cases with at least some similarities to the circumstances and policy concerns of this case. As the appellants explain, a date of mailing often is more definitive and less subject to misrepresentation than a date of receipt. Moreover, as the appellants contend, if this policy is ambiguous, it should be construed against ERC, the drafter.
I conclude that the appellants have presented prevailing arguments under both their "unambiguous policy" and "ambiguous policy" theories. The majority has reached its conclusion by re-writing the policy and inexplicably adding dispositive terms. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.