Court Opinion

ID: 9695146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:09:31.458126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:09.177456
License: Public Domain

SCHUDSON, J.

(concurring in part; dissenting in part).

¶ 39. I join in the Majority's analysis and conclusion affirming the dismissal of the Van Erdens' action against American Family. I depart, however, from the Majority's decision affirming the dismissal of their action against the City of Milwaukee.
¶ 40. The pivot point is certain. The parties agree that if the City was "[a]n insurer writing policies," see Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m)(a)l, then the City was required to offer underinsured motorist coverage; if not, the City *189was not required to do so. Clearly, Wisconsin case law, statutes, and common sense establish that the City was acting as "[a]n insurer writing policies" and, therefore, was required to offer underinsured motorist coverage to Officer Van Erden.
¶ 41. In Millers National Insurance Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 184 Wis. 2d 155, 516 N.W.2d 376 (1994), the supreme court, determining whether the City of Milwaukee was required to provide uninsured motorist coverage to one of its police officers, used a sound, common sense approach: "The City may purchase third-party insurance, it may form a municipal insurance mutual..., it may rely upon self-insurance, or any other lawful means to provide the UM insurance coverage. However, regardless of which means the City chooses to provide insurance, the obligation is the same." Id. at 166 (emphasis added). The supreme court concluded that, "[b]y electing to self-insure," the City had "effectively placed itself in the insurance business" and, therefore, was "responsible for the same liabilities that would attach to third-party insurers covering that same risk." Id. at 167.
¶ 42. Quite reasonably, therefore, the Van Erdens argue that the City, by creating what it calls an "Uninsured Motorist Self-Insurance Plan" as its means of regulating payment of UM benefits, has become an "[ijnsurer writing policies." After all, they contend, while not denominated a "policy," the City's "Plan" carries the attributes of an insurance policy:
The "Plan"... regulates how, when and to whom the City will pay damages; defines who is covered, an uninsured vehicle and motor vehicle accident; sets the City's limits of liability; regulates the effect of other insurance on the City's obligation to pay; sets forth the City's right to maintain a [Wis. Stat. § 102.29 third *190party liability claim]; regulates when and how disputes over payments would be arbitrated; provides the City a right of subrogation; [and] provides the applicable law, forum and severability of the "Plan's" provisions in the event of dispute.
(Citations omitted.) Thus, the Van Erdens maintain, the City should not be allowed to escape its obligation to its employees simply by mere artifice. I agree.
¶ 43. Millers National and common sense provide more than enough to sustain the Van Erdens' claim. But our statutes provide considerably more support. Among others, the Van Erdens invoke: (1) Wis. Stat. § 600.03(4), defining a" 'blanket insurance policy'" as "a group policy covering unscheduled classes of persons, with the persons insured to be determined by definition of the class with or without designation of the persons covered but without any individual underwriting"; and (2) Wis. Stat. § 600.03(23), defining "[a] 'group insurance policy'" as "a policy covering a group of persons, and issued to a policyholder in behalf of the group for the benefit of group members who are selected under procedures defined in the policy or agreements collateral thereto, with or without members of their families or dependents." The City's "Plan," the Van Erdens contend, may constitute a "policy" under either or both of these provisions. Significantly, the City offers no response to their arguments based on these statutes. See Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Sec. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1979) (unrefuted arguments deemed admitted).
¶ 44. And perhaps most critically, Wis. Stat. § 600.03(35) defines an insurance " '[p]olicy'" as "any document other than a group certificate used to prescribe in writing the terms of an insurance contract, including endorsements and riders and service con*191tracts issued by motor clubs." The City, however, contends that its "Plan" is not a "policy" under the statute because it was not created through offer and acceptance, and with consideration. In their amicus curiae brief, however, the Milwaukee Police Association (MPA) and the Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization (MPSO) correctly counter:
The contractual elements of offer, acceptance, and consideration are all present. The City offers the UM Plan to MPA and MPSO members because it is part of the package of benefits for City employees who drive city-owned vehicles in the course of their employment. Potential City employees accept this offer when they accept employment with the City. Employees give the City consideration for the insurance contract by working for the City. Also, if the City did not provide this benefit, City employees' unions might bargain for increases in other types of compensation, such as salary. By providing these insurance benefits, consideration flows from the City to the employees.
Thus, the City's "Plan" is indeed a " 'policy'" — a "document ... used to prescribe in writing the terms of an insurance contract." See Wis. Stat. § 600.03(35).
¶ 45. Failing to even mention the supreme court's decision in Millers National, the Majority primarily relies on this court's decisions in Classified Insurance Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car of Wisconsin, Inc., 186 Wis. 2d 478, 521 N.W.2d 177 (Ct. App. 1994), and Prophet v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., 2000 WI App 171, 238 Wis. 2d 150, 617 N.W.2d 225. Neither case, however, offers much guidance here and, certainly, neither case controls. Evolving from significantly different circumstances, both cases addressed whether Wisconsin's statutes required that out-of-state rental car agencies, holding certificates of self-insurance, provide uninsured *192motorist coverage. See Classified, 186 Wis. 2d at 483-84; Prophet, 238 Wis. 2d 150, ¶ 18. Here, however, we are considering a completely different issue: whether a self-insured in-state party's "Plan" constitutes a "policy" triggering its statutory obligation to offer UIM coverage to its employees.
¶ 46. As the supreme court declared: "The fact that the City is self-insured does not diminish its obligation .... In this context, self-insurance is considered another form of insurance .... [T]he City has effectively placed itself in the insurance business." Millers National, 184 Wis. 2d at 166-67. The City's "Plan" walks and squawks like a "policy" duck. Swimming in the insurance pond, the City is "[a]n insurer writing policies." Thus, the City was required to meet its corresponding obligation to offer UIM coverage to Officer Van Erden under Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (4m)(a)l. Accordingly, on this aspect of the appeal, I respectfully dissent.