Court Opinion

ID: 9738546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:55:54.390726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:42:53.733864
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(dissenting). I do not accept the legality of this court binding underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) to the terms of sec. 631.43(1), Stats., the so-called "stacking statute." UIM is not required by statute as a part of an automobile policy as is uninsured motorist coverage (UM). It is a private contract between the insured and the insurer and not controlled by statute.
I still agree with the reasoning of Justice William G. Callow's dissent in Wood v. American Fam. Mut. Ins., 148 Wis. 2d 639, 436 N.W.2d 594 (1989).