Court Opinion

ID: 9702539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:15:50.214927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:38.583090
License: Public Domain

Gordon, J.
(dissenting in part). I am unable to agree with the majority’s opinion insofar as it construes the insurance policy of the Milwaukee Blood Center as not constituting a waiver of immunity. While I was one of those who dissented in Marshall v. Green Bay (1963), 18 Wis. (2d) 496, 118 N. W. (2d) 715, I believe that the holding of that case is controlling here.
Under the heading “Waiver of Immunity Endorsement,” the Milwaukee Blood Center’s policy contained the following provision:
*336“It is agreed that in any claim or suit for damages covered by the policy, except by written request of the named insured by its duly authorized officer, the company will not use, either in the adjustment of claims or in the defense of suits against the insured, the immunity of the insured from tort liability.”
The waiver of immunity which this court found had arisen as a result of the insurance policy in the Marshall Case is not reasonably distinguishable, in my opinion, from the foregoing waiver of immunity which appears in the policy of insurance of the Milwaukee Blood Center.