Court Opinion

ID: 9662399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:08:14.819488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:39.253809
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, C. J.
(dissenting). I would affirm. The word “upon” in the subject insurance policy is not ambiguous. The word is to be taken in its ordinary and commonly accepted meaning.1 No “reasonable person in the position of the insured”2 would understand the language used in the policy to mean any different than the first dictionary definition of “upon” as “on.”3 Since the word “upon” is not ambiguous, I would not apply the well-accepted rule that where there is an ambiguity the policy language should be construed against the insurance company drafting the policy.
I have been authorized to state that Mr. Justice Con-nor T. Hansen joins in this dissent.

 Mittelsteadt v. Bovee (1960), 9 Wis. 2d 44, 49, 100 N. W. 2d 376.

 McPhee v. American Motorists Ins. Co. (1973), 57 Wis. 2d 669, 677, 205 N. W. 2d 152.

 Webster’s, New International Dictionary (3d ed., unabridged), p. 2517.