Court Opinion

ID: 9662179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:01:54.069675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:37.567532
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority that this case should be remanded to the circuit court. I would remand, however, for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Dr. Frantz’s notice, knowledge, or expectations.1 The majority makes a finding of fact that “Frantz had received no notice at the time of the accident that Imperial could terminate its defense efforts upon tender of the policy limits.” (P. 88, supra.) Appellate courts cannot make findings of fact. Wurtz v. Fleischman, 97 Wis. 2d 100, 109, 293 N.W.2d 155 (1980).
*911 cannot join the majority in its adoption of a “readability” and “notice” rule for binders and insurance policies. (Majority opinion, p. 89.) These are matters for the legislature and the commissioner of insurance. Sec. 601.41, Stats. 1981-82. Roth the Wisconsin and Minnesota legislatures have adopted readability statutes. Sec. 631.22(2), 1981-82, provides that an insurer may provide a consumer insurance policy only if the policy is “written in commonly understood language, legible, appropriately divided and captioned by its various sections and presented in a meaningful sequence” and that the Commissioner of Insurance shall promulgate rules establishing standards for the determination of compliance with the readability statute.2 Prescribing the form of insurance policies is not a matter for this court.
Nor can I join either of the concurrences. I do not agree with Chief Justice Heffernan’s or Justice Ceci’s interpretation of the majority opinion on the public policy issue that the parties have presented to this court. The issue presented is whether public policy precludes an insurer from enforcing a provision in the policy allowing the insurer to terminate the defense of its insured by tendering its policy limit for settlement. As I read the opinion, the majority does not decide the public policy issue — either in dicta, as the Chief Justice contends, or in holding, as Justice Ceci asserts.
The majority has merely reasoned that highlighted or boldface language is necessary for an insurer to be relieved of his duty to defend by relying on a tendered for settlements clause in the insured’s contract; it has not concluded that this is a sufficient condition. The public policy question, while argued by the parties, is not discussed in the majority opinion. Indeed the whole point of the majority opinion seems to be to avoid the public policy question entirely.

 The majority’s application of the principle of reasonable expectations is not entirely clear. The principle has more than one meaning. See Rodman v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 208 N.W.2d 903, 905-908 (Iowa 1973).

 I do not mean to imply that Wisconsin law governs.