Court Opinion

ID: 9675804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:06:16.418881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:39.489793
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 34. (dissenting). For the same reasons which are more fully set forth in Marotz v. Hallman, 2007 WI 89, 302 Wis. 2d 428, 734 N.W.2d 411 (Bradley, J., dissenting), I write separately here.
¶ 35. I cannot join the majority's opinion because its interpretation that Wis. Stat. § 632.32(5)(i) is "plain" and unambiguous is based on an analysis that violates a basic principle of statutory construction by rendering statutory language superfluous. Additionally, it fails to follow prior decisions interpreting the statute. Id., ¶ 2.
¶ 36. The majority concludes that State Farm can reduce UIM limits by payments made from non-UIM tortfeasors. Majority op., ¶ 2. I disagree. Rather, I determine that § 632.32(5)(i) does not permit State *427Farm to reduce its UIM limits by amounts paid to Bailey on behalf of Regala, a non-UIM tortfeasor. Because I conclude that § 632.32(5)(i) does not permit such a reduction, I need not reach the issue of contextual ambiguity. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 37. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON and Justice LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR. join this dissent.