Court Opinion

ID: 9851503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:14:06.330122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:03.676217
License: Public Domain

SNYDER, J.
¶ 42. (dissenting). The majority concludes that the word "run" in Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4)(a)2. (omnibus clause), as used in the phrase "hit-and-run," is ambiguous when applied to an accident where a vehicle driver stops at the scene of an accident, is advised by the other party that no injury has occurred, and then leaves the scene of the accident without providing identification becoming an unknown operator or owner. Resolving the ambiguity in favor of the insured, the majority concludes that the Acuity policy provided coverage to the insured under the mandated omnibus clause uninsured motorist (UM) provision.1
¶ 43. Acuity contends that the phrase "hit-and-run," including both components "hit" and "run," has already been defined by our supreme court in Hayne v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co., 115 Wis. 2d 68, 339 N.W.2d 588 (1983). The Hayne court concluded that "the plain meaning of 'hit and run' consists of two elements: a 'hit' or striking, and a 'run,' or fleeing from the scene of an accident." Id. at 73-74. It is undisputed that the operator of the unknown vehicle here did not "run" or "flee." The operator and vehicle stopped at the scene of the accident. Accordingly, argues Acuity, no ambiguity exists that would lend itself to a judicial analysis by this court to resolve the omnibus clause UM coverage issue in favor of the insured.
¶ 44. The majority seizes upon Hayne's specific focus on the "hit" portion of the phrase "hit and run" to *596conclude that the "run" part of the definition is dictum. Majority, ¶ 14. Having done so, the majority then opines that the application of the ambiguous term "run" to UM omnibus clause coverage is "novel" and that this court should decide what "run" means in "hit-and-run" in order to further the administration of justice by definitively deciding the meaning of "run" in "hit-and-run." Majority, ¶ 7. Because I disagree that this court can declare the Hayne definition of "run" dictum, and because the definition is controlling to our analysis, I must dissent.
¶ 45. The supreme court is the only state court with the power to overrule, modify or withdraw language from a previous supreme court case. Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 189, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997). Concerning the potential existence of dicta in supreme court opinions, however, the supreme court has directed that:
While the statement in [an earlier supreme court opinion] was not decisive to the primary issue presented, it was plainly germane to that issue and is therefore not dictum.
"It is deemed the doctrine of the cases is that when a court of last resort intentionally takes up, discusses, and decides a question germane to, though not necessarily decisive of, the controversy, such decision is not a dictum but is a judicial act of the court which it will thereafter recognize as a binding decision."
State v. Kruse, 101 Wis. 2d 387, 392, 305 N.W.2d 85 (1981) (citing Chase v. Am. Cartage Co., 176 Wis. 235, 238, 186 N.W. 598 (1922)); see also Malone v. Fons, 217 Wis. 2d 746, 753-54, 580 N.W.2d 697 (Ct. App. 1998) (analyzing prior supreme court statements as "dicta or holding").
*597¶ 46. Because the supreme court defined the term "run" as used in the omnibus clause phrase "hit and run," and because only the supreme court can withdraw language from or otherwise modify its own holding, see Cook, 208 Wis. 2d at 189, I respectfully dissent.

 The circuit court decided the coverage issue in favor of the insured on a public policy basis. The majority opinion abandons that approach and affirms the existence of coverage based upon a statutory interpretation and construction analysis.