Court Opinion

ID: 9738545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:55:54.38708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.832203
License: Public Domain

*205SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(concurring). I am more persuaded by the public policy arguments in the majority's opinion than I am by its interpretation of sec. 631.43(1).
According to the majority opinion's interpretation of sec. 631.43(1), had Matthiesen been insured with only one policy with $200,000 UIM coverage, sec. 631.43(1) would not apply and therefore the reducing clause in Matthiesen's policy would reduce Matthie-sen's recovery from his insurer by the amount of the tortfeasor's liability policy. The majority's reasoning thus unfairly leads to different results ¿¿pending on the number of policies the UIM policyholder has that cover the same loss.