Court Opinion

ID: 9662180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:01:54.073323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:37.568516
License: Public Domain

*92LOUIS J. CECI, J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority’s holding that it is not against public policy for an insured to terminate its duty to defend by tendering its policy limits. Contracts of insurance rest upon and are controlled by the same principles of law that are applicable to other contracts. The parties to an insurance contract are free to contract as they see fit, and the extent of liability of an insurer is governed by the language of the contract. See, McPhee v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 57 Wis. 2d 669, 673, 205 N.W. 2d 152 (1973).
I also agree with the majority’s ruling that an insured is entitled to notice when new policy language is added after an insured expresses a desire to renew a previous policy. I feel compelled to concur, however, because I disagree with the guidelines set out in the majority opinion as to the manner in which an insured must be notified of language changes in the policy. The policy in question was issued and received in Minnesota and approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Insurance. The majority, in effect, is instructing foreign insurance companies how to write policies of insurance for their own residents. The issue of whether an insured has been properly notified of an insurer’s intent to limit its duty to defend by tendering the policy limits should be decided on a case-by-case basis and not under the stringent rules laid out in the majority opinion.
I would also remand this case to the trial court to determine whether Dr. Frantz’s prior policy contained the disputed language and, thus, whether Dr. Frantz was in fact put on notice that his insurer’s duty to defend could be terminated by tendering the policy limits. The majority is assuming that the limiting language was not in Dr. Frantz’s previous policy, and this assumes a fact not before this court.