Olander v. Klapprote
| Decision Date | 31 March 1953 |
| Parties | OLANDER, v. KLAPPROTE et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Vaudreuil & Vaudreuil, Kenosha, for appellant.
Robert J. Breakstone, Racine, Morris Shovers, Racine, of counsel, for respondent.
It is not claimed that the policy does not afford plaintiff protection in the event that Klapprote is found guilty of actionable negligence. Nor is it claimed that the second paragraph of the quoted provision is effective. Appellant's contention is that it and Studey had the right to contract that in the event his automobile be operated by a person under the age of 25 years the insured would reimburse appellant for any loss suffered by the insurer arising out of the negligent operation of the car by an operator who had not reached that age.
The right to limit an insurer's liability by the terms of its contract, unless the restriction be prohibited by statute or considerations of public policy, is not questioned. If, however, there be such statutory restriction it rather than any provisions of a contract controls. Ottens v. Attlas Assur. Co., 226 Wis. 596, 275 N.W. 900, 113 A.L.R. 770; Jones v. Preferred Accident Ins. Co., 226 Wis. 423, 275 N.W. 897. We agree with the trial court that the exclusion provisions of the policy are made ineffective by the provisions of sec. 204.34(1), Stats.:
'No policy of insurance, agreement of indemnity or bond covering liability or loss arising by reason of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle issued in this state shall exclude from the coverage afforded or provisions as to benefits therein any of the following:
'(a) Persons while driving or manipulating a motor vehicle, who shall be of an age authorized by law so to do; * * *.'
Klapprote was of an age authorized by law to drive an automobile.
Appellant contends that the statute was intended for the protection of the public, not for that of the owner. The language of the statute is plain. It cannot be interpreted to mean that its purpose is to afford protection only to persons damaged as a result of the operation of the automobile. It provides that no policy shall exclude 'coverae afforded--or provisions as to benefits therein * * * of persons while driving * * * a motor vehicle who shall be of an age authorized by law so to do', thus prohibiting any effort to deny coverage and protection to the operator.
Sec. 204.30(3), Stats., denies to the insurer the right to exclude from its policy provisions of indemnity to the person responsible for the operation of the automobile. It provides that no automobile policy shall be issued unless it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Insurance Co. v. American Fidelity & Cas. Co.
...additional insureds, carries force, it has been answered in the negative with a literal enforcement of the statute in Olander v. Klapprote, 263 Wis. 463, 57 N.W.2d 734. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $11,000. The third party defendants are entitled to 1 Wisconsin Statute......
-
Rural Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peterson
...law or public policy. McPhee v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 57 Wis.2d 669, 673, 205 N.W.2d 152 (1973); see also Olander v. Klapprote, 263 Wis. 463, 465, 57 N.W.2d 734 (1953) (the right to limit an insurer's liability by terms of contract not questioned unless restriction is prohibited by s......
-
Perkins v. Perkins, 22279
...subject, but the court did not decide what limitations could be made under general exclusion clauses. In the case of Olander v. Klapprote, 263 Wis. 463, 57 N.W.2d 734, it was held that statutory restrictions pertaining to the insurer's right to limit its liability under a policy will prevai......
-
Zepczyk v. Nelson
...In discussing the purpose of sec. 204.34(1), Stats., in connection with an automobile policy exclusion clause in Olander v. Klapprote (1953), 263 Wis. 463, p. 466, 57 N.W.2d 734, this court stated that the statute is meant to afford protection not only to the public but to drivers who are o......