Bertler v. Employers Ins. of Wausau
Decision Date | 28 November 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 76-361,76-361 |
Citation | 86 Wis.2d 13,271 N.W.2d 603 |
Parties | David J. BERTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU, a Domestic Corporation, and Economy Fire and Casualty Company, a Foreign Corporation, and Kenneth A. Kulas, Defendants- Respondents. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
The judgment appealed from was entered upon a motion for summary judgment. The judgment dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against one of the insurance company defendants because of an exclusion provision of the policy. The plaintiff appeals.
Harry F. Peck, Milwaukee (argued), for appellant; Ralph Adam Fine and Petrie, Stocking, Meixner & Zeisig S. C., Milwaukee, on brief.
Robert C. Evans, Waukesha (argued), for respondents; Wimmer, Evans & Vollmar, Waukesha, on brief.
On May 7, 1974, the plaintiff David J. Bertler was working on the premises of his employer A. O. Smith Corporation in Milwaukee. Bertler was struck by a forklift vehicle operated by the defendant Kenneth A. Kulas, a co-employee. Both Bertler and Kulas were within the scope of their employment. Bertler was severely injured.
The plaintiff brought this action for his personal injury damages against Kulas and the defendant Economy Fire & Casualty Company, Kulas' homeowners liability insurer, 1 alleging Kulas was negligent.
The action was brought pursuant to sec. 102.29, Stats., which provides in part as follows:
Economy Fire & Casualty brought a motion for summary judgment requesting the complaint be dismissed based primarily upon its policy's "business pursuit" exclusions. The exclusion in the policy is as follows:
The trial court concluded Kulas was engaged in a "business pursuit" at the time of the injury to the plaintiff and granted the motion for summary judgment.
The issues before us on appeal are (1) whether operating a forklift in the course of employment falls within the "business pursuit" exclusion contained in the personal liability or homeowners insurance policy, and (2) if so, whether the application in co-employee situations violates Wisconsin public policy.
Under the terms of the personal liability and homeowners insurance policy issued to defendant Kulas, Economy Fire & Casualty Company "agrees to pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage, to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence." It is not disputed that defendant Kulas is an "insured" and that the forklift accident in which plaintiff was injured is an "occurrence." The matter which is contested and the issue before this court on appeal is whether this occurrence falls within the "business pursuit" exclusion in the policy, thus relieving the insurer of the liability it would otherwise have incurred by virtue of the general provisions of the insurance agreement.
Insurance contracts are controlled by the same rules of construction as are applied to other contracts. Ehlers v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 81 Wis.2d 64, 74, 259 N.W.2d 718 (1977). These general principles were reiterated in D'Angelo v. Cornell Paperboard Products Co., 59 Wis.2d 46, 49, 207 N.W.2d 846, 848 (1973):
While courts are to construe insurance contracts to give effect to the intentions of the parties, objective rather than subjective intent is the test. As was recently restated in Cieslewicz v. Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co., 84 Wis.2d 91, 97-98, 267 N.W.2d 595, 598 (1978):
Homeowner's insurance is a combination of many of the property and liability types of insurance coverages purchased by the average insured to protect against risks arising both in the home and away from the home. 2
While these policies combine both at-home and away-from home coverages, it has been said that "their primary function is to provide a package of coverage for the insured in his homeowner capacity." Donovan v. Nettles, 327 So.2d 433 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1976).
A concise statement of the function of general public liability insurance is provided in Long, The Law of Liability Insurance, sec. 10.01, p. 10-2:
Frequently both the homeowner's and the public liability coverages are combined, as in the present case, in a single insurance agreement. The intended role of these two types of coverages should be kept in mind in construing the language in the exclusionary clause pertaining to business pursuits. The nature and purpose of the policy as a whole has an obvious bearing on how far the insured could reasonably expect the scope of the exclusion to extend and whether the risk involved here is one the insurance company had in fact contemplated (or should have contemplated) in computing its rates.
The "business pursuits" exclusion is a common exception to the broad coverage provided in homeowners and general liability insurance policies. The reasons for this particular exclusion from the general coverage provided in the policy have been analyzed and summarized by various commentators. They are in substantial agreement.
Mehr and Cammack, Principles of Insurance (4th ed. 1966), give the following explanation for the provision:
Cited in Frazier, "The 'Business Pursuits' Exclusion in Personal Liability Insurance Policies," 572 Insurance Law Journal 519, 520 (1970).
Lawrence A. Frazier, in an article analyzing court decisions which dealt with the exclusion, made these assertions concerning its necessity and functioning:
". . . these exclusions are necessary for one or more of the following reasons: management of the moral hazard; keeping rates at a reasonable level; eliminating coverages that are provided by other contracts of insurance the insured is apt to have; eliminating coverages not needed by the typical purchasers of the contract; eliminating uninsurable perils; and eliminating specialized coverages that require special underwriting and rating." Frazier, "The 'Business Pursuits' Exclusion in Personal Liability Insurance Policies," 572 Insurance Law Journal 519 (1970), citing Kulp & Hall, Casualty Insurance, 4th ed. 1968 at p. 80.
In a 1977 update to his first article, Frazier amplifies his prior statement as follows:
Frazier, "The Business-Pursuits Exclusion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kremers-Urban Co. v. American Employers Ins. Co.
...person. Henderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 59 Wis.2d 451, 457, 208 N.W.2d 423 (1973); Bertler v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 86 Wis.2d 13, 18, 271 N.W.2d 603 (1978); Schmidt v. Luchterhand, 62 Wis.2d 125, 133, 214 N.W.2d 393 (1974). Words or phrases in a contract are amb......
-
Grotelueschen by Doherty v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 90-2571
...have in the mind of a reasonable insured lay person. Kremers-Urban, 119 Wis.2d at 735, 351 N.W.2d 156; Bertler v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 86 Wis.2d 13, 18, 271 N.W.2d 603 (1978). Thus, we read unambiguous terms from the objective standpoint of what a reasonable insured would understa......
-
Vidmar v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...of a type of insurance coverage should be kept in mind when construing an exclusion from coverage. Bertler v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 86 Wis.2d 13, 18, 271 N.W.2d 603 (1978). The purpose of uninsured motorists coverage is to compensate an insured who is the victim of an uninsured mot......
-
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Sparks, No. W2006-01036-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 12/7/2007)
...activity." Id. at *3 (citing Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kompus, 354 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Mich.App. 1984); Bertler v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 271 N.W.2d 603, 607 (Wis. 1978); Haley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 529 A.2d 394, 396 (N.H. 1987); Fadden v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 51 Misc.2d 858, 86......