Court Opinion

ID: 9678499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:21:22.362054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.039825
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(concurring). The majority and the dissenters engage in a heated skirmish over the plain meaning of the endorsement, their weapons the canons of statutory construction. I do not join this fray, because it is not the real battle. The real battle is what, if any, exclusions are permitted under sec. 632.32, Stats. 1979-80.
Although the majority says exclusions from uninsured motorist coverage are permitted, it is apparent from the majority opinion that Roe v. Larson, 99 Wis.2d 332, 298 N.W.2d 580 (1980), is a weak precedent and one to be avoided by construing the insurance policy in such a way that the court need not reach the issue of whether a particular exclusion violates sec. 632.32(4) (a), Stats. 1979-80.
I conclude, as did the court of appeals, that Endorsement 44, no matter how it is read, violates sec. 632.32, Stats. 1979-80. See Roe v. Larson, 94 Wis.2d 204, 287 N.W.2d 824 (Ct App 1979), rev’d 99 Wis.2d 332, 298 N.W.2d 580 (1980) (Abrahamson, J. dissenting). I therefore concur in the result.