Hartland Cicero Mut. Ins. Co. v. Elmer
| Decision Date | 26 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-589,84-589 |
| Citation | 122 Wis.2d 481,363 N.W.2d 252 |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
| Parties | HARTLAND CICERO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin insurance corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marshall W. ELMER, Defendant-Respondent, Terry Lembcke, Defendant. |
William A. Woodrow of Adams, Woodrow & Woodrow, S.C., Neenah, for plaintiff-appellant.
Ruth J. Weber of Byrne, Bubolz & Weber, Appleton, for defendant-respondent.
Before SCOTT, C.J., BROWN, P.J., and NETTESHEIM, J.
Hartland Cicero Mutual Insurance Company appeals from that part of a final judgment wherein the trial court ruled that the provisions in an insurance policy which exclude coverage for "all punitive damages" do not exclude coverage for statutory double damages under sec. 26.09, Stats.
The issue in this case is whether a homeowner's liability insurance policy covering "all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as compensatory damages because of bodily injury or property damage, excluding all punitive damages, caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies" obligates the insurer to pay statutory double damages imposed upon the insured under sec. 26.09, Stats. Because we conclude that statutory double damages as provided for in sec. 26.09 are not equivalent to common-law punitive damages and that a reasonable person in the position of the insured would conclude that accidental acts were covered under the policy, we hold the provisions of the policy do not exclude coverage for statutory double damages. Accordingly, we affirm.
The facts in this case are undisputed. Hartland Cicero Mutual Insurance Company (Hartland) issued an insurance policy to Marshall W. Elmer. In September of 1982, Elmer allegedly trespassed on property owned by Terry and Karen Lembcke (Lembckes) and cut down over 200 trees on the Lembcke property. The Lembckes made a claim against Elmer and Hartland under Elmer's homeowner's liability policy. The Lembckes sought double damages pursuant to sec. 26.09, Stats.
Hartland commenced this action for declaratory judgment pursuant to sec. 806.04(2), Stats., requesting that the trial court determine whether Elmer's insurance policy provided coverage for double damages as provided under sec. 26.09, Stats. The complaint alleged that Elmer had cut down trees on property owned by the Lembckes "in the mistaken belief" that Elmer owned the property.
The trial court determined that Elmer did not intend to cut trees from the Lembckes' land but acted in the mistaken belief that he owned the land. Therefore, the trial court concluded there was no intentional act. The trial court further concluded that Elmer's homeowner's policy provided coverage to him for the double damages imposed under sec. 26.09, Stats. It held that the language in the exclusion did not expressly and unambiguously deny coverage. Therefore, the trial court concluded that an ambiguity was created which it construed against the insurer.
The construction of words and clauses in an insurance policy is a question of law for the court. Katze v. Randolph & Scott Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 116 Wis.2d 206, 212, 341 N.W.2d 689, 691 (1984). Appellate courts owe no deference to the trial court's resolution of issues of law. Behnke v. Behnke, 103 Wis.2d 449, 452, 309 N.W.2d 21, 22 (Ct.App.1981).
Hartland contends that statutory double damages as provided for in sec. 26.09, Stats., are punitive damages, not compensatory damages. Hartland claims that compensatory damages are intended only to make the injured party whole while punitive damages serve the purpose of penalizing the wrongdoer for obnoxious conduct. Hartland claims that since sec. 26.09 provides for damages beyond those considered to be compensatory, the damages are penal in nature and constitute punitive damages.
In Cieslewicz v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co., 84 Wis.2d 91, 101-02, 267 N.W.2d 595, 600-01 (1978), the supreme court distinguished statutorily imposed multiple damages from common-law punitive damages. "The prerequisites for the imposition of statutory multiple damages are less stringent than those for the imposition of common law punitive damages." Id. at 99, 267 N.W.2d at 599.
First, differing levels of culpability are required to warrant the award of additional damages. Id. at 101, 267 N.W.2d at 600. The award of "[p]unitive damages rest[s] on allegations which, if proved, demonstrate a particular kind of conduct on the part of the wrongdoer, which has variously been characterized in our cases as malicious conduct or willful or wanton conduct in reckless disregard of rights or interests." Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis.2d 260, 267, 294 N.W.2d 437, 442 (1980). Punitive damages may be awarded where there is proof that the defendant's conduct was outrageous. Id. at 271, 294 N.W.2d at 444. The award of statutory double damages, however, does not involve a particular state of mind or outrageous character. Cieslewicz at 101-02, 267 N.W.2d at 600.
Second, the award of statutory multiple damages and punitive damages depends on different modes of assessment of damages. "The jury determines the amount of the punitive damages with the view to having the punitive damages accomplish their purposes, namely, punishment and deterrence." Wangen at 302, 294 N.W.2d at 458-59 (footnote omitted). Multiple damages, on the other hand, are assessed whenever the statutory requirements are met. Cieslewicz at 102, 267 N.W.2d at 600.
Last, there are differing methods of calculation of punitive damages as opposed to statutory multiple damages. In calculating common-law punitive damages, the wealth of the defendant must be considered whereas wealth has nothing to do with the calculation of statutory multiple damages. Id. at 102, 267 N.W.2d at 600-01.
In Cieslewicz, the supreme court determined that the distinctions between common-law punitive damages and statutory multiple damages require that the two forms of additional damages be treated separately. Id. at 103, 267 N.W.2d at 601. The court also held that insurance against statutory multiple damages is not contrary to public policy. Id.
Section 26.09, Stats., provides:
CIVIL LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL CUTTING, REMOVAL AND TRANSPORT. In addition to the other penalties and costs, any person unlawfully cutting, removing or transporting raw forest products is liable to the owner or to the county holding a tax certificate, or to the board...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Buelow
-
Oakley v. Fireman's Fund of Wisconsin
... ... [157 Wis.2d 78] American Family Mut. Ins. Co. by Lawrence E. Classen, Madison, argued, for ... Hartland Cicero Mut. Ins. Co. v. Elmer, 122 Wis.2d 481, 487, 363 ... ...
-
Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Nemetz
... ... Verhaagh, Green Bay, for defendant-appellant, Germantown Mut. Ins. Co ... [135 Wis.2d 250] Michael G. Grzeca, ... Hartland Cicero Mutual Insurance Co. v. Elmer, 122 Wis.2d 481, 487, 363 N.W.2d 252, ... ...
-
Roberts v. Wolf
... ... Smith v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 155 Wis. 2d 808, 810, 456 N.W.2d 597 (1990) ... Bend's contentions have also been addressed in Hartland v. Cicero Mutual Insurance Co. v. Elmer, 122 Wis. 2d 481, ... ...
-
Punitive damages: when, where and how they are covered.
...encompassed coverage for punitive damages; coverage did not violate public policy). Hartland Cicero Mutual Insurance Co. v. Elmer, 363 N.W.2d 252 (Wis.App. 1984) punitive damages exclusion did not apply to statutory double Koehring Co. v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 564 F.Supp.......