![]() ♥ Because policy form 9849B did not comply with 2009 Wisconsin Act 28, the Raygos’ policies included endorsement 6949B.1. Act 28 also prohibited antistacking clauses like the one in policy form 9849B, but it allowed insurers to “limit the number of motor vehicles for which the limits for coverage may be added to 3 vehicles.” 2009 Wis. Act 28 defined an underinsured motor vehicle, in relevant part, as a vehicle whose bodily injury liability insurance limits “are less than the amount needed to fully compensate the insured for his or her damages.” 2009 Wis. ♤ On November 1, 2009, 2009 Wisconsin Act 28 went into effect, mandating a broader definition of the term “underinsured motor vehicle” than that contained in policy form 9849B. 2014AP1547 also prohibits the stacking, or adding together, of UIM coverage limits from multiple State Farm policies issued to the insured. ![]() Consequently, the Harley-Davidson policy is not at issue in this appeal, and we will not discuss it further. In the circuit court, State Farm conceded the Raygos were entitled to UIM coverage under the Harley-Davidson policy, and the parties subsequently settled the Raygos’ claim under that policy. ![]() ♣ Policy form 9849B defines an underinsured motor vehicle, in relevant part, as a “land motor vehicle … for which the total limits of insurance and self-insurance for bodily injury liability from all sources … are less than the Underinsured Motor Vehicle Coverage limits of this policy” Policy form 9849B 1 The Raygos also purchased a fourth policy from State Farm covering a HarleyDavidson motorcycle. Each policy provided UIM coverage with a per-person limit of $100,000. BACKGROUND ♢ The Raygos purchased three automobile insurance policies from State Farm that covered, respectively, a Dodge Charger (Dodge), a Chrysler Pacifica (Chrysler), and a Nissan King Cab pick-up truck (Nissan).1 The three policies were issued using the same State Farm policy form, 9849B. We reject the Raygos’ argument and affirm. The Raygos argue the altered policy provisions never went into effect because State Farm failed to provide notice as required by the policies. The circuit court concluded the Raygos were not entitled to UIM coverage under three policies issued by State Farm, pursuant to altered policy terms that took effect shortly before the accident. The Raygos sought UIM coverage for injuries Ricky sustained in a Februaccident. Ricky and Janet Raygo appeal a summary judgment dismissing their underinsured motorist (UIM) claim against their automobile insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Marathon County: GREGORY E. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PAUL WADZINSKI, L & S ELECTRIC, INC., STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY SERVICES AND MANAGED HEALTH SERVICES INSURANCE CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. RAYGO AND JANET RAYGO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. 2013CV41 2014AP1547 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT III RICKY W. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. ![]() If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals Appeal No. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED JanuDiane M.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |