|
Umbrella Policy Still Last Line of Defense
Zachariah Treder, et al. v. LST Limited Partnership, et al., 03-0848 (Recommended for publication in the official reports). Treder, an infant, was severely injured as a result of a ceiling fan being installed too low in an apartment. Commercial Union issued a general liability policy and an umbrella policy naming both the building owner and the management company, Bieck, as insureds. West Bend Mutual issued a policy naming Bieck and its office which included a "real estate managed property endorsement." West Bend argued that its coverage was excess to Commercial's policies, or, in the alternative, its coverage should be pro-rated with Commercial's umbrella policy. The court of appeals disagreed. West Bend's policy was intended to be primary coverage for the business and the business property. Therefore, West Bend is obligated to pay its limit before Commercial pays under the umbrella policy.
|
|
City Not Obligated to Provide UIM Coverage
Steven Van Erden, et al. v. Joseph Sobczak, et al., 02-1595 (Recommended for publication in the official reports). Van Erden, a City of Milwaukee police officer, was struck by an underinsured motorist. Van Erden filed a declaratory judgment action against the City requiring it to provide underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage to its employees. Van Erden argued that because the City was required to provide uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under §62.67, Stats., it should be classified an "insurer" under §632.32(4m), Stats., and therefore must offer UIM coverage to its employees. The court of appeals held that because the City is self-insured it does not qualify as an "insurer" §632.32(4m)(a)1, Stats. If the legislature had intended to require the City to offer UIM coverage, it would have expressly stated so in §62.67, Stats., or would have amended it to include UIM coverage when it created subsection (4m).
|
