Court Opinion

ID: 9739547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:17:22.981485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:12.896225
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent because the result reached by the majority is the ultimate example of elevating form over substance.
The fact is that Walker is suing Wausau on a contract-an insurance policy-but does not want to be bound by its terms. The policy clearly states that it does not apply to "[alnoy obligation for which the 'nsured' or the 'insured's' insurer may be held liable under any workers' [sic] compensation ... law or any similar law." *1106Appellant's App. p. 47. There is no dispute but that Walker was operating the tractor-trailer in the course of his employment, which means that worker's compensation applies, and this incident is exeluded under the clear terms of the policy. Therefore, the insurance company would be entitled to summary judgment on this basis but for a technicality-it responded too late to the requests for admission, which were then deemed admitted.
Without the admission that none of the defenses listed in the policy apply to Walker's claim, Walker would have no case. Walker could not possibly win this case in a trial on the merits, and I cannot condone this type of "gotcha" litigation. I would therefore find that the trial court erred in denying Wausau's motion for leave to withdraw the admission, but affirm its grant of summary judgment on the basis that the policy prevents recovery where worker's compensation applies.