Court Opinion

ID: 9854337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:05:55.158021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:02.092742
License: Public Domain

KESSLER, J.
¶ 14. {concurring in part; dissenting in part). I agree with the Majority that Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m)(a)l. required American Family to give the Rebernicks notice that they could purchase underin-sured motorist coverage as part of their umbrella liability policy and required American Family to provide a brief description of the coverage. Majority, ¶¶ 1-8. However, I disagree with the Majority, ¶¶ 9-11, that American Family met these requirements. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the Majority opinion. Having come, to a different conclusion about what is required of American Family by § 632.32(4m), I believe the Rebernicks are entitled to a meaningful remedy for the clear breach of statutory requirements. Thus, I would require American Family to comply now with the notice provisions, and would permit the Reber-*472nicks to decide upon receipt of the notice whether to purchase underinsured motorist coverage as an addition to their umbrella policy retroactive to the date that the umbrella policy was first delivered.
¶ 15. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m)(a)l., if the insurer issues an insurance policy insuring against "liability for loss or damage . . . caused by any motor vehicle" and that insurance "does not include underin-sured motorist coverage" then the insurer must provide to the insured "written notice of the availability of underinsured motorist coverage, including a description of the coverage." Here, it is undisputed that the Rebernicks' umbrella policy did not include underin-sured motorist coverage, but could have. It is also undisputed that American Family never sent the Reber-nicks a separate written notice that such coverage was available with the umbrella policy.
¶ 16. The Majority concludes that a single clause within the umbrella policy satisfies the Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m)(a)l. requirement of written notice of the availability of underinsured motorist coverage. Majority, ¶ 9. The clause appears in the record on the fourth page of the umbrella policy as the 21st of 25 listed exclusions. It provides: "Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists. We will not cover any claims which may be made under Uninsured Motorists Coverage, Underin-sured Motorists coverage or similar coverage, unless this policy is endorsed to provide such coverage." (Bold-ing in original.) I disagree that the existence of this clause alone, buried in small type in the midst of a long policy, satisfies § 632.32(4m)(a)l. Nothing in this record establishes that an insured reading this clause would understand that such additional coverage was being offered for sale to the insured, or that such coverage is available in this policy.
*473¶ 17. Even if the insured has already purchased underinsured motorist coverage in a primary automobile policy, nothing in the record suggests that the same terms and conditions were available in the umbrella policy. It is undisputed that American Family provided no description of the underinsured motorist coverage it would sell the Rebernicks as part of their umbrella policy.1 The description of underinsured motorist coverage provided to the Rebernicks with their primary policy is not a sufficient description of underinsured motorist coverage that could be available with an umbrella policy. Without a separate description of what is covered in an underinsured motorist endorsement in an umbrella policy, the insured has no way to know whether such coverage is the same or different from the insured's automobile liability rider, or what the price will be. Likewise, an insured cannot know that additional coverage is available without being specifically told that it is. The record does not establish whether underinsured coverage costs the same or whether it applies in the same situations when it is an endorsement to an umbrella policy rather than an automobile liability policy. What we cannot discern from the record, we certainly should not conclude are facts known to the Rebernicks.
¶ 18. I conclude the American Family policy has failed to give either sufficient notice of the availability of an underinsured motorist coverage endorsement to the umbrella policy, or a sufficient description of this *474coverage as required by statute. The next question, therefore, is what the remedy should be.
¶ 19. American Family failed to comply with the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m). Notice was required at the time the umbrella policy was delivered. Had that occurred, the Rebernicks could have decided whether to purchase underinsured motorist coverage, and in what amount. Had they elected to purchase the coverage, they would have paid American Family the price of the policy. American Family would have been compensated for the risk it assumed and the Reber-nicks would have had the coverage they desired. Returning both parties to the place they would have been, but for American Family's violation of the statute, seems to me to be the only equitable remedy.
¶ 20. The Majority asserts there must have been a mutual mistake in order to provide a remedy. Majority, ¶ 12. If that analysis is correct, in my view, American Family's mistake was an incorrect analysis of its obligations under the law. The Rebernicks' "mistake" in failing to purchase coverage was occasioned by American Family's actions. Because American Family provided no notices, there is no evidence in the record that the Rebernicks had the knowledge or the opportunity to decide whether to add this coverage to their umbrella policy, contrary to the Majority, ¶¶ 12-13.

 American Family admitted at oral argument that it does not believe it is ever required to provide either notice of, or a policy term description of, underinsured coverage in connection with an umbrella policy if the insured has purchased a primary automobile liability policy.