Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Hall, 288 Wis. 2d 282

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Wis. Stat. § 632.32(3)(a) applies to uninsured motorist coverage. It concluded that Progressive Northern Insurance Company's other-insurance clause, which provided primary coverage to a named insured but only excess coverage to certain occupancy insureds, violated the statute and could not be treated as an exclusion under § 632.32(5)(e). The court affirmed the court of appeals and required Progressive to pay the first $100,000 of applicable uninsured motorist coverage.

Holdings

1. Wis. Stat. § 632.32(3)(a) applies to uninsured-motorist coverage in an automobile insurance policy issued in Wisconsin, regardless of whether that coverage is categorized as indemnity or liability insurance.
2. An insurer may not characterize an other-insurance clause as an exclusion under § 632.32(5)(e) in order to avoid the requirements of § 632.32(3)(a).
3. Progressive's other-insurance clause violated § 632.32(3)(a) because it provided primary uninsured-motorist coverage to a named insured but only excess coverage to an occupancy insured who was not a qualifying relative.
4. The policy must be enforced as though it conformed to the statute, treating Edward as having the same primary uninsured-motorist coverage as Richard. Progressive therefore must pay the first $100,000 of applicable uninsured-motorist coverage, with General Casualty's coverage excess.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wis. Stat. § 632.32(3)(a) applies to uninsured-motorist coverage.
2. Whether Progressive's other-insurance clause could be treated as an exclusion under Wis. Stat. § 632.32(5)(e) and thereby avoid the requirements of § 632.32(3)(a).
3. Whether Progressive's clause violated § 632.32(3)(a) by providing primary coverage to a named insured but only excess coverage to an occupancy insured.
4. What remedy applies when an insurance-policy provision violates § 632.32.

Disposition

affirmed