Court Opinion

ID: 9668514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:16:57.494985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:45.890572
License: Public Domain

Wingert, J.
(dissenting in part). I cannot agree with that part of the decision which holds that Aetna Casualty & Surety Company is liable beyond the minimum limits of $5,000 for one person and $10,000 for all persons injured *133in the accident, which were specified in the Safety Responsibility Law (sec. 85.09 (5) (c), Stats.), at the time of the accident. I agree with the majority that having filed the SR-21, Aetna cannot wholly repudiate it and escape liability altogether, but I think its liability is limited by the statutory figures and not by the higher policy limits.
In my view Aetna’s liability does not result from any waiver or estoppel in favor of the plaintiff or Smith’s estate or Aetna’s insured. The mistaken filing of the SR-21 was not such an intentional relinquishment of a known right as should constitute a waiver in their favor. There is no proof of any such action in reliance upon the filing, to the prejudice of the parties claiming the estoppel, as would normally be required to create an estoppel. To test these propositions, let us suppose that instead of filing an SR-21 Miss Teresin-ski had mistakenly given plaintiffs and Smith’s administrator, verbally or by letter, the sáme information that was contained in the SR-21, that the Aetna policy covered Smith and the Cadillac he was driving for $5,000/$10,000 limits; and that plaintiffs and Smith’s administrator and Aetna had thereafter proceeded exactly as they have in the present case. I do not believe it could be seriously contended in such a case that the mistaken statements alone would have barred Aetna from showing the true fact and maintaining its defense that the policy did not cover the car driven by Smith.
I think the liability in a case like the present results only from the statute, and should extend only as far as necessary to carry out the purpose of the statute. The Safety Responsibility Law, sec. 85.09 (5), Stats., requires that the license of the operator and the registration of the owner of the automobile shall be suspended unless security be deposited for the payment of any judgment for damages resulting from the accident, or, in the alternative, such operator or owner have in effect a policy of automobile liability insurance with *134at least specified limits, which at the time of this accident were $5,000/$10,000. The purpose of the statute is to require minimum coverage in those amounts, carefully fixed by the legislature, as an alternative to deposit of security or suspension of the license and registration.
When the insurer files an SR-21 certifying that an insurance policy complying with the statutory requirement is in effect with respect to the particular automobile and driver, thus affording the basis for leaving the license and registration unsuspended, the insurer will not later be permitted to say that the minimum coverage necessary to meet the statutory requirement did not in fact exist. Public policy, as embodied in the statute, will not permit the insurer to assert that the statutory substitute for security required as a condition of not suspending the license and registration does not exist, after they have been permitted to remain unsus-pended on the strength of the certification that such statutory substitute does exist.
The statutory purpose is fully carried out when the Insurance Company is held liable to1 the extent of the minimum policy limits specified in the statute. That purpose justifies refusal to permit the insurer to assert that insurance coverage up to those limits was not in effect. It does not, however, justify refusal to permit the insurer to show its mistake beyond those limits, where the ordinary elements of waiver and estoppel in favor of the plaintiff and the insured are not present.
To go further and hold that an innocent mistake which has hurt none of the parties and in reliance on which none of them has changed his position to his detriment forecloses the Insurance Company from asserting the true fact that there was no coverage beyond the statutory $5,000/$10,000 limits, appears to me both unjust and contrary to applicable legal principles. It imposes a severe penalty on the insurer for a wholly innocent mistake prejudicial to nobody, brings *135unjust enrichment to the party mistakenly certified as covered by the policy by giving him insurance coverage for which neither he nor anyone else contracted or paid, and may create a windfall for the plaintiff. These results are more apparent in the Henthorn Case (Henthorn v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co., post, p. 180, 83 N. W. (2d) 759), where the policy limit of liability for injury to a single person was $50,000 as compared with the statutory requirement of $5,000, and the rule of the present case may operate to increase the insurer’s liability, for which it received no premium, by $45,000 and correspondingly enrich the insured by reason of an equally innocent mistake, prejudicial to neither the plaintiff nor the insured.
A principle which will produce such a penalty on the one side and corresponding unjust enrichment on the other ought to be avoided if possible. I think the requirements of public policy as manifested by the Safety Responsibility Law would be as well served, and the interests of justice and conformity to hitherto accepted legal principles better served, by a rule which would limit the liability of the Insurance Company in such circumstances to the minimum policy limits required by the statute.
Mr. Justice Steinle joins in this dissent.