Brey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Decision Date25 June 2020
Docket NumberAppeal No. 2019AP1320
Citation393 Wis.2d 574,947 N.W.2d 205,2020 WI App 45
Parties Elliot BREY and Estate of Ryan B. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, Channing H. Mathews, Craig A. Mathews and Sentry Insurance, a Mutual Company, Defendants.
CourtWisconsin Court of Appeals

On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of James G. Curtis and Garett T. Pankratz of Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik, La Crosse.

On behalf of the defendant-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Andrew J. Hebl and Kathryn A. Pfefferle of Boardman & Clark LLP, Madison.

Before Fitzpatrick, P.J., Blanchard, and Kloppenburg, JJ.

FITZPATRICK, P.J.

¶1 Elliot Brey brought suit in the Monroe County Circuit Court against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company seeking to recover underinsured motorist benefits based on the death of Elliot's father, Ryan Johnson, who died from injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.1 Elliot is an insured under the State Farm policy, but Johnson was not. Elliot and State Farm agree that a provision of the State Farm policy requires that an insured suffer "bodily injury" for there to be UIM coverage,2 and they also agree that while Johnson suffered "bodily injury" as defined in the State Farm policy, Elliot did not. As a result, Elliot and State Farm also agree that the State Farm UIM insured requirement bars UIM coverage for Elliot's claims. Nonetheless, Elliot argues that his UIM claim against State Farm does not fail because, pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 632.32(1) and (2)(d) (2017-18),3 the UIM insured requirement in the State Farm policy is void and unenforceable.

¶2 The circuit court disagreed with Elliot's argument and granted summary judgment to State Farm dismissing Elliot's UIM claim. We conclude that the UIM insured requirement which bars Elliot's UIM claim is void and unenforceable pursuant to the operation of WIS. STAT. § 632.32(1) and (2)(d). Those statutory subparts do not allow for a UIM policy provision which demands that bodily injury must be sustained by an insured for there to be UIM coverage. Accordingly, we reverse the order of summary judgment and remand this matter to the circuit court with directions to grant summary judgment in favor of Elliot on the question of UIM coverage.

BACKGROUND

¶3 There is no dispute regarding the following material facts.

¶4 Ryan Johnson was the passenger in a vehicle driven by Channing Mathews which was involved in an accident. Johnson sustained fatal injuries in that accident. Johnson is survived by his minor child, Elliot.

¶5 At the time of Johnson's death, Elliot lived with his mother, Hannah Brey. Hannah is a named insured under the automobile liability policy issued by State Farm, and that policy includes UIM coverage.

¶6 The State Farm policy provides, in pertinent part, the following with regard to UIM coverage:

We will pay compensatory damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or driver of an underinsured motor vehicle . The bodily injury must be:
1. sustained by an insured ; and
2. caused by an accident that involves the ownership, maintenance, or use of an underinsured motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.

¶7 As stated, Elliot is an insured under the State Farm policy for purposes of UIM coverage. Johnson was not an insured under the policy. Also germane to State Farm's UIM policy provision, Elliot and State Farm do not dispute that: the accident that caused Johnson's death involved the use of a motor vehicle; the vehicle Channing was driving at the time of the accident was an "underinsured motor vehicle" as defined in the State Farm policy; and only Johnson sustained "bodily injury" as defined in in the State Farm policy. Based on those undisputed facts, the sole policy language impediment to Elliot's UIM claim is the requirement in the State Farm UIM provision that the "bodily injury must be ... sustained by an insured."

¶8 Elliot filed a complaint against State Farm seeking to recover, under the State Farm policy's UIM provision, damages Elliot sustained as a result of Johnson's wrongful death.4 See WIS. STAT. § 895.04 (authorizing wrongful death actions). In that complaint, Elliot alleged that Channing negligently operated the motor vehicle, Channing's negligence was a cause of Johnson's death, and Elliot suffered a loss of monetary support from Johnson as a result of Johnson's death. Elliot further alleged that the State Farm policy provides UIM coverage for Elliot's underinsured losses.

¶9 State Farm requested that issues concerning coverage be bifurcated from issues of liability and damages. The circuit court granted State Farm's motion and stayed proceedings on issues of liability and damages.

¶10 State Farm and Elliot each filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of UIM coverage for Elliot's claims. The circuit court concluded that the State Farm policy does not provide UIM coverage for Elliot's claims, granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, and denied Elliot's motion for summary judgment. Elliot appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶11 We now summarize our standard of review, summary judgment methodology, and the principles that govern the interpretation of statutes. We then analyze the requirements of WIS. STAT. § 632.32(1), apply a plain language interpretation to § 632.32(2)(d), and explain why we reject State Farm's arguments.

I. Standard of Review, Summary Judgment Methodology, and Interpretation of Statutes.

¶12 This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same methodology employed by the circuit court.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Klomsten , 2018 WI App 25, ¶31, 381 Wis. 2d 218, 911 N.W.2d 364. Summary judgment is proper, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." WIS. STAT. § 802.08(2) ; see Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 381 Wis. 2d 218, ¶31, 911 N.W.2d 364. In this case, because there are no disputed material facts, we must determine which party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Sec. 802.08(2) ; Town of Grant v. Portage Cty. , 2017 WI App 69, ¶12, 378 Wis. 2d 289, 903 N.W.2d 152.

¶13 This appeal requires us to interpret a statute. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we determine independently of the decision of the circuit court. Pasko v. City of Milwaukee , 2002 WI 33, ¶23, 252 Wis. 2d 1, 643 N.W.2d 72. "[T]he purpose of statutory interpretation is to determine what the statute means so that it may be given its full, proper, and intended effect." State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty. , 2004 WI 58, ¶44, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. "We assume that the legislature's intent is expressed in the statutory language." Id. Accordingly, "statutory interpretation ‘begins with the language of the statute.’ " Id. , ¶45 (quoted source omitted). "If the meaning of the statute is plain, we ordinarily stop the inquiry." Id. (quoted source omitted). Our supreme court further notes:

Context is important to meaning. So, too, is the structure of the statute in which the operative language appears. Therefore, statutory language is interpreted in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.

Id. , ¶46. Statutory language is given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially defined words are given their technical or special definitions. State v. Warbelton , 2008 WI App 42, ¶13, 308 Wis. 2d 459, 747 N.W.2d 717 ; see WIS. STAT. § 990.01(1).

¶14 In addition, courts should not add words to, or subtract words from, a statute to give it a certain meaning. See State ex rel. Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n , 2020 WI App 17, ¶35, 391 Wis. 2d 441, 941 N.W.2d 284 ; see also Dawson v. Town of Jackson , 2011 WI 77, ¶42, 336 Wis. 2d 318, 801 N.W.2d 316 (stating "[w]e decline to read into the statute words the legislature did not see fit to write").

II. Analysis.

¶15 As noted, the parties agree that the pertinent terms of the State Farm policy bar UIM coverage for Elliot's wrongful death claim. This is solely because the UIM insured requirement restricts UIM coverage to instances in which there is bodily injury and an insured has sustained that bodily injury. Elliot does not comply with these requirements because Elliot, who is an insured under the State Farm policy, did not sustain bodily injury and Johnson, who did sustain bodily injury, was not an insured under the policy.

¶16 Elliot argues, however, that the State Farm policy's UIM coverage limitation to "insureds" who have sustained "bodily injury" is void and unenforceable pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 632.32(1) and (2)(d). We now consider whether the UIM insured requirement violates the requirements of § 632.32(1) and (2)(d) and, as a result, is void and unenforceable under the terms of those statutory subparts.5

A. Requirements of WIS. STAT. § 632.32(1).

¶17 We begin our analysis by considering the requirements of WIS. STAT. § 632.32(1), which we now repeat: "Except as otherwise provided, this section applies to every policy of insurance issued or delivered in this state against the insured's liability for loss or damage resulting from accident caused by any motor vehicle, whether the loss or damage is to property or to a person." State Farm does not dispute that § 632.32(1) applies to the State Farm policy in light of the fact that the policy was issued in Wisconsin and concerns motor vehicle insurance. State Farm also does not dispute that, in providing UIM coverage, it is required to comply...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Lee
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • 20 Enero 2021
    ...hearing. The interpretation and application of a statute present questions of law that we review de novo. Brey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 2020 WI App 45, ¶13, 393 Wis. 2d 574, 947 N.W.2d 205. If the language of the statute is plain, we ordinarily stop the inquiry. Id. We give statu......
  • State v. Prado
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • 25 Junio 2020
    ...... See Barrows v. American Family Ins. Co. , 2014 WI App 11, ¶9, 352 Wis. 2d 436, 842 N.W.2d ......
  • Brey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 15 Febrero 2022
    ...and (2)(d) bar an insurer from limiting UIM coverage to only those insureds who suffer bodily injury or death. Brey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 WI App 45, ¶¶24–25, 393 Wis. 2d 574, 947 N.W.2d 205. We granted State Farm's petition for review.II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶8 We review a ......
  • Brey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 15 Febrero 2022
    ...2022 Circuit Court Monroe County L.C. No. 2015CV223, Richard A. Radcliffe Judge. REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Reported at 393 Wis.2d 574, 947 N.W.2d 205 PDC No:2020 WI.App. 45 - Published For the defendant-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Andrew B. Hebl, Kathr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • TRANSHUMANISM: MORALITY AND LAW AT THE FRONTIER OF THE HUMAN CONDITION.
    • United States
    • Ave Maria Law Review No. 20, January 2022
    • 1 Enero 2022
    ...LAW DICTIONARY (Wolters Kluwer Bouvier Law Dictionary Desk ed. 2012). (208.) Brey ex rel. Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 947 N.W.2d 205, 213 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Miller v. Luther, 489 N.W.2d 651, 652 (Wis. Ct. App. (209.) MODEL PENAL CODE [section] 210.2(1) (1962). (210......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT