Court Opinion

ID: 9657803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:38:32.147129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:48.528017
License: Public Domain

*228STEINMETZ, J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the majority opinion for three reasons. First, I disagree with the majority's conclusion that an inanimate corporation can have family members or have a person live "with" it. Sunburst was in the business of providing residential care and treatment facilities to wards. Wards, however, do not qualify as members of a family because a person cannot live with a corporation as a family member even as a means to establish coverage.
My second reason for opposing the majority opinion is that the majority's decision fails to consider the effect its decision will have on fleet policies. Although the policy in the present case involves multiple vehicles owned by the same owner, it does resemble a fleet policy and therefore the majority's decision may have an effect on such policies.
Finally, I disagree with the majority because it concludes that "because St. Paul collected separate premiums for each of the sixteen covered automobiles, it in effect issued sixteen separate policies, and thus the single limit provision is an 'other insurance' provision which violates sec. 631.43(1), Stats." Majority op. at 223. There was actually only one policy issued by the insurance company. I do not believe that the legislature intended to apply sec. 631.43(1) to this kind of policy and therefore the statute is inapplicable to the present case.
For the aforementioned reasons, I dissent.