Burns v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1085,83-1085 |
| Parties | Mary M. BURNS, Plaintiff-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. MILWAUKEE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant- Appellant and Cross-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Daniel R. Doucette and Thomas R. Schrimpf and Kluwin, Dunphy, Hankin & McNulty, Milwaukee, for defendant-appellant.
James G. Curtis and Hale, Skemp, Hanson & Skemp, La Crosse, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before GARTZKE, P.J., DYKMAN, J. and BRUCE F. BEILFUSS, Reserve Judge.
Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Company appeals from a judgment on agreed facts awarding Mary M. Burns money damages for her personal injuries and for the wrongful death of her husband. She cross-appeals from an order dismissing her separate claim for punitive damages. The issue in Milwaukee Mutual's appeal is whether the trial court erred by stacking uninsured motorist coverage on two automobiles. 1 The issue in the cross appeal is whether recovery of punitive damages on an uninsured motorist insurance claim violates public policy. We conclude that stacking is proper and that allowing punitive damages under those circumstances is contrary to public policy. We therefore affirm.
Milwaukee Mutual issued a single automobile liability policy to Mary Burns, describing a Datsun and a Ford in the declarations. The policy provides uninsured motorist coverage of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident on the Datsun and on the Ford. Identical premiums of $2.55 were paid for the uninsured motorist coverage on each car.
The parties agree that Mary Burns was injured and her husband killed in an automobile accident involving the Datsun, which Mary drove. The adverse driver was 100% negligent and has no liability coverage insurance. Mary's damages for the wrongful death of her husband exceed $30,000. Her damages for her own injuries are $24,000. Refusing to stack the coverage, Milwaukee Mutual paid Mary $15,000 uninsured motorist benefits on account of the wrongful death and $15,000 on account of her own damages.
Mary Burns's first claim seeks damages predicated on stacking the uninsured motorist coverages. She asserts that on account of the wrongful death she is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits totalling $30,000, and on account of her bodily injuries she is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits totaling $23,000. Her second claim demands punitive damages against Milwaukee Mutual on the uninsured motorist coverage. The second claim alleges that the uninsured driver operated the adverse vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants.
The trial court found that in fact Mary Burns had two policies, even though incorporated in one document. It concluded she may stack the uninsured motorist coverage limits, but dismissed her complaint for punitive damages on public policy grounds.
We held in Landvatter v. Globe Security Ins. Co., 100 Wis.2d 21, 300 N.W.2d 875 (Ct.App.1980), that uninsured motorist coverages in two policies may be stacked or aggregated if a prohibitory provision in either policy offends sec. 631.43(1), Stats.
The uninsured motorist provision in Milwaukee Mutual's policy provides in relevant part that the company agrees:
To pay all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom, ... caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured automobile; ....
The policy contains the following "other insurance" clause:
[I]f the insured has other similar insurance available to him and applicable to the accident, the damages shall be deemed not to exceed the higher of the applicable limits of liability of this insurance and such other insurance, and the company shall not be liable for a greater proportion of any loss to which this Coverage applies than the limit of liability thereunder bears to the sum of the applicable limits of liability of this insurance and such other insurance.
Section 631.43(1), Stats., provides:
When 2 or more policies promise to indemnify an insured against the same loss, no "other insurance" provisions of the policy may reduce the aggregate protection of the insured below the lesser of the actual insured loss suffered by the insured or the total indemnification promised by the policies if there were no "other insurance" provisions....
The "other insurance" provision in Milwaukee Mutual's policy effects the reduction prohibited by sec. 631.43(1), Stats. The "other insurance" provision is therefore unenforceable, unless the "2 or more policies" language in sec. 631.43(1) makes that statute inapplicable, the coverages involved having been issued in a single document.
Mary Burns paid separate premiums for uninsured motorist on each auto. We therefore agree with the view of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Citizens Mutual Insurance Company v. Turner, 53 Mich.App. 616, 220 N.W.2d 203, 204-05 (1974):
Although there was one policy number issued by the plaintiff insurance company, two premiums were charged and paid which covered two cars. The question thus presented is whether the Michigan Supreme Court intended the question of multiple coverage to be dependent upon the number of insurance policies issued by the insurer or by the number of premiums paid by the insured. To hold that the answer depends on the question of how many policy numbers were issued would be a illogical since the insurance companies would merely combine several separate policies issued to the same insured under one policy. Plaintiff insured the parents' two cars and required two separate premiums to be paid. From the insured's point of view, this relationship is the same as having two policies, regardless of how the insurer subsequently handles those paid premiums for its administrative purposes. Accordingly, we view this case as involving two different insurance policies and, therefore, the trial court correctly held that the uninsured...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Folkman v. Quamme
...222 (1989) (citing Wood v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 148 Wis. 2d 639, 651, 436 N.W.2d 694 (1989)); Burns v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 121 Wis. 2d 574, 577-78, 360 N.W.2d 61 (Ct. App. 1984); Anderson, supra, § 24. The court of appeals in Mills mentioned this principle when it stated: "This is......
-
Santos v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
...Cal.Rptr. 140 (1985); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Daughdrill, 474 So.2d 1048, 1052 (Miss.1985); Burns v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 121 Wis.2d 574, 580, 360 N.W.2d 61 (Wis.Ct.App.1984). In the underinsurance context, where the wrongdoer is not in a contractual relationship with the insu......
-
Sharp v. Daigre
...added.] See also American Surety Company of New York v. Gold, 375 F.2d 523 (10th Cir.1966) and Burns v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Company, 121 Wis.2d 574, 360 N.W.2d 61 (App.1984). Finally, in C. Huckabay, supra, at p 1178, appears the Finally, in support of denying the insurability of pun......
-
Weimer v. Country Mut. Ins. Co.
...Carrington v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 169 Wis.2d 211, 224, 485 N.W.2d 267, 272 (1992); see Burns v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 121 Wis.2d 574, 578, 360 N.W.2d 61, 64 (Ct.App.1984). The parties dispute, however, whether Trace paid separate premiums protecting against "the same The Wis......