Court Opinion

ID: 9734982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:55:07.673756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:53.209095
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 67. (dissenting). I have carefully read the lengthy majority opinion in the instant case and have reread the majority and dissenting opinions in Hayne v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co., 115 Wis. 2d 68, 339 N.W.2d 588 (1983). I continue to believe that my dissent in Hayne is correct. Indeed in the intervening years I have become more persuaded of its correctness.
¶ 68. Many states have either adopted or reaffirmed the position set forth in the Hayne dissent.
¶ 69. The Hayne majority opinion has been eroded since Hayne was decided. This erosion has taken *338place because the Hayne majority opinion is not in keeping with the objectives of the statute. In an effort to conform with the statutory objectives, this court has pinned the outcome of uninsured motorist cases in Wisconsin on such artificial distinctions as whether a plaintiff can show that physical contact with a third vehicle was indirect,1 or that a flying object from one vehicle touches the other.2
¶ 70. That the legislature has not amended the statute does not dissuade me. "Legislative acquiescence is a familiar argument in statutory construction cases. . .. [But it] is often vulnerable to rebuttal. . .. Numerous variables, unrelated to conscious endorsement of a statutory interpretation, may explain or cause legislative inaction.... The doctrine of legislative acquiescence is merely a presumption to aid in statutory construction."3
¶ 71. For the reasons explained fully in my Hayne dissent and because our subsequent cases have backed away from the Hayne majority opinion, I dissent.

 Theis v. Midwest Sec. Ins. Co., 2000 WI 15, 232 Wis. 2d 749, 606 N.W.2d 162.

 Wenke v. Gehl Co., 2004 WI 103, ¶¶ 32, 33, 35, 274 Wis. 2d 220, 682 N.W.2d 405. See also State v. Hansen, 2001 WI 53, ¶ 38, 243 Wis. 2d 328, 627 N.W.2d 195.