Court Opinion

ID: 9687780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:48:29.426254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:31.787373
License: Public Domain

BROWN, J.
¶ 43. (concurring).
Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas
there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter "the House")
a general lack of stirring hy all creatures therein,
including, but not limited to a mouse.
a variety of foot apparel, e.g. stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed
by and around the chimney in said House
in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick a/k/a St. Nicholas a/k/a Santa Claus (hereinafter "Claus")
would arrive at some time thereafter.
The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House, were located
in their individual beds.
and were engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein visions of confectionary treats,
including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums,
*228did dance, cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.
¶ 44. So begins a bar journal article written by George H. Hathaway, who in 1998 was the chair of the Plain English Committee of the State Bar of Michigan. Hathaway, The Seventh Annual (1998) Clarity Awards, 77 Mich. B.J. 298 (1998).1 Hathaway was writing about the "Search for Clarity" Awards, given out by the State Bar of Michigan, to promote the use of clear writing by legal professionals. Several clarity awards were given out that year, but none regarding insurance contracts. Hathaway explained in pertinent part, why:
We are not giving an award to any specific insurance contract because most insurance contracts in Michigan are now written in clear, user-friendly plain English without legalese. This is because the insurance industry has voluntarily written its policies in plain English. Furthermore, plain English in insurance policies in Michigan is required by a statute .... New or revised insurance policies in Michigan must be approved by ... the Michigan Insurance Bureau ....
Id. at 300-01.
¶ 45. Like the Plain English Committee of the State Bar of Michigan, this court has also seen change in the way insurance policies are written. Compared to years past, the policies are now written in simple words, short sentences and the active voice rather than in long pages of text without headings, complex sentences, passive construction, unnecessary legalese and multi-syllabic words. I assume that this was a voluntary *229undertaking by the insurance industry, and I applaud the industry's readiness to draft its policies in understandable terms.
¶ 46. But more needs to be done. Wisconsin Stat. § 631.22(2) requires all consumer policies to be "coherent, written in commonly understood language, legible, appropriately divided and captioned by its various sections and presented in meaningful sequence." While the statute goes on to say that violation of the statute does not void or render voidable any portion of an insurance policy and is not a defense to an action under the insurance policy, see Wis. Stat. § 631.22(6), it is nonetheless a public policy statement by our legislature reflecting the will of its citizenry. It is in that spirit that I write this concurring opinion.
¶ 47. It is my view that although policy language is now written in a simple, concise, short and uncomplicated way, too much industry jargon is used without much, if any, attempt to define the jargon for the consumer. Moreover, the policies quite often could be presented in much more meaningful sequences.
¶ 48. Let's take the two policies at issue in cases before this court, the decisions of which were issued this same day — Dowhower2 and Vorbeck. Both policies use the word "endorsements" in the page after the declarations page. The Dowhower policy calls the page an "endorsement schedule" without any attempt to explain what an endorsement is. It simply lists a bunch of numbers which refer to the various endorsements. The Vorbeck policy also has a second page that includes a section called "attachments" and tells the policyholder that there are endorsements which are part of the *230policy. Again, no attempt is made to explain what an endorsement is. It is not until the policyholder actually turns to the endorsement itself that it tells how the endorsement "changes" the policy terms. While many lawyers doing personal injury work — either for plaintiffs or for the defense — know from the beginning that an endorsement is a provision added to an insurance contract altering its scope or application, I doubt that one layperson in a hundred would come up with that definition. In common, everyday language, "to endorse" would mean to endorse a check or endorse a candidate. I hate to sound like Andy Rooney, but why can't insurance policies simply call changes in policies for what they are — changes? If the object is to alert the policyholder to changes in the terms and conditions of the policy, why not say so?
¶ 49. And what is the definition of "split liability limits?" The author of the lead opinion in this case had to literally hunt the electronic libraries to find a definition for this term. Think of how difficult it must be for the nonlawyer policyholder to understand what the term means. Instead of a heading entitled "split liability limits" which, I submit, leaves the policyholder clueless, why not say "maximum limit per person" and "total limit regardless of the number of insureds?"
¶ 50. I realize that insurers have used insurance jargon in policies for just about forever. But the passage of time has not made it any easier for the policyholding public to understand its terminology. Sometimes change is good. Maybe it's time for a change.
¶ 51. Ridding policies of jargon is only one part of the equation, however. Another part would be arranging policies by easy-to-use reference guides or indexes. While I understand the admonition in Folkman v. Quamme, 2003 WI 116, 264 Wis. 2d 617, 665 N.W.2d *231857, that courts are not to hunt for ambiguity, neither should policyholders be forced to hunt for information about what is covered and what is not. Reading insurance policies should he not be a game of Clue. The panel in Dowhower had to scour the policy before it was able to turn up the information about the reducing clause. The panel in this case had a somewhat easier time of it because there was an index and because the policy as a whole read in a more sequential pattern. Instead of reworking the whole policy into one tight, unambiguous document, insurers tend to simply add more pages to a previously written policy whenever there is a change in the law or a change in how the insurers view risk. This practice is economically inefficient because it spawns lawsuits that could easily be avoided.
¶ 52. A third part of the equation, at least as far as underinsurance is concerned, would be to explain, up front, what underinsurance means. An insurer could easily explain in the body of the policy that if the policyholder is injured by another who has insurance, but that person's insurance is inadequate, the insurer will pay the difference up to an amount listed in the insured's policy that is not paid by other sources. The way most policies read now, the first paragraph of the "Limits of Liability" section of the underinsurance portion continue to define "The Limit of Liability" as: "the most that will be paid by the insurer that issues the policy." This is the same language that was in the policies before reducing clauses were legalized in Wisconsin through passage of Wis. Stat. § 632.32(5) (i). The unaware might think that the amount of underinsurance he or she is buying is the amount stated in the policy "in addition" to other sources of payment. Even in the endorsement section, this language is repeated. The policyholder has to read the next paragraph of the *232endorsement to understand that the limit is "reduced" by payments from other sources. Why not simply write a policy that says, in no uncertain terms from the start that the maximum limit is that which is recoverable from all sources?
¶ 53. I am not naive. I know that even if the changes I propose are acted upon, plaintiffs lawyers will still bring suits claiming that a policy is ambiguous. That is as certain as death and taxes because policy writers cannot foresee every circumstance which may arise and because the policy, as applied, may be claimed to be ambiguous in those circumstances. But I will bet that the number of lawsuits based on ambiguity would dwindle. And that would mean less litigation. And less litigation could only present a win-win situation for the insurance industry. The cost of producing a clearer policy is low and the economic benefit is high.
¶ 54. I am aware that many insurers use standard policy forms prepared by the Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO), a national insurance industry organization, while others use policy forms that they have prepared themselves but are based on ISO forms. My understanding is that the policy drafters at ISO are made up of employees in the industry. I suggest that the drafting committee be composed of English professors as well.
¶ 55. I am also not naive enough to think that if the words on the page are simple, the underlying concepts will be simple. I know that, oftentimes, the simple word will not suffice. Some portions of an insurance policy are necessarily complex because they provide for possible problems during the contracting period and specify the rights and remedies of the parties. And I am not saying that these changes will guarantee an improvement in the percentage of policyholders who actually read their policy. Still, if we are to *233continue to hold that there is a "duty to read" a policy — as I think we should — that duty implies that the policy is readily readable. The easier we make the reading exercise and the more intelligible the reading becomes, the more the insurance contract is a product of a knowledgeable decision by the insured.
¶ 56. Finally, I observe that I am not the first appellate judge in Wisconsin to publicly share this view. Thirty-three years ago, in Heater v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 30 Wis. 2d 561, 565, 141 N.W.2d 178 (1966), then Justice Bruce Beilfuss noted how the language of a disputed rider was "unnecessarily cumbersome, complex, and hard to read." He wrote: "In order to avoid confusion and litigation of this kind an effort should be made to simplify the language of insurance contracts so that they may be more readily understood by the average purchaser." Id. While great strides have been made since that time, we can do better. In that light, I advocate that the State Bar of Wisconsin emulate its sister bar in Michigan and give out its own clarity awards. In fact, as did Mr. Hathaway in Michigan, without apparent success, I advocate that the trial lawyers association and the civil defense lawyers association be part of the committee that determines these awards. Maybe that would help spur a Plain English movement in the writing of policies.

 Dowhower ex rel. Rosenberg v. Marquez, 2004 WI App 3, 268 Wis. 2d 823, 674 N.W.2d 906 (2003).