State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rechek
| Decision Date | 08 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-903,84-903 |
| Citation | 370 N.W.2d 787,125 Wis.2d 7 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Curtis L. RECHEK, Defendant-Respondent, General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
David M. Skoglind of Dempsey, Magnusen, Williamson & Lampe, Oshkosh, for defendant-appellant.
Keary W. Bilka, argued, Fond du Lac, for plaintiff-respondent; James C. Herrick, Jr. of Herrick & Bilka, S.C., Fond du Lac, on brief.
Before SCOTT, C.J., BROWN, P.J., and NETTESHEIM, J.
The automobile policy in this case included, among those insured, relatives of the household provided that the relatives did not own a "private passenger automobile." To be decided on this appeal is whether this state will recognize the majority rule adopted in other jurisdictions that a vehicle can reach such a condition of disrepair that it can no longer be considered an automobile for insurance policy purposes. 1 We adopt the majority rule for Wisconsin, as did the trial court, and we affirm.
Curtis Rechek was involved in an accident on December 24, 1975. He was living at home with his parents at that time. Curtis' father, Eugene Rechek, had an automobile insurance policy with General Casualty. A lawsuit arose from the accident and State Farm, the insurer of the other driver involved, impleaded General Casualty. General Casualty denied that Curtis Rechek was an insured because he possessed two cars of his own at the time of the accident and thus fell under the exclusion for relatives who owned a "private passenger automobile." A coverage trial ensued. Various witnesses testified concerning the condition of Curtis Rechek's vehicles at the time of the accident. At the conclusion of this trial, the trial court found that the vehicles were in such an inoperable state that they could no longer be considered automobiles within the contemplated provisions of the policy. General Casualty appeals.
General Casualty first asserts that the insurance policy is clear on its face; therefore, a discussion of whether to adopt the majority rule is unnecessary because the insurance policy, by its very terms, clearly preempts the issue. General Casualty relies on its definition of automobile which, as stated in its policy, "means a four wheel land motor vehicle designed for use principally upon a public road." General Casualty argues that it does not matter whether the automobile is inoperable, as long as it was designed for use upon a public road. If a relative owns one of these vehicles, the relative is not covered.
We are mindful of the caveat that we must not modify clear and unambiguous language when construing an insurance policy. Herwig v. Enerson & Eggen, 98 Wis.2d 38, 40, 295 N.W.2d 201, 203 (Ct.App.1980), aff'd, 101 Wis.2d 170, 303 N.W.2d 669 (1981). We are not persuaded, however, that the language is as lucid as General Casualty would have us believe. The term "designed for use" is reasonably or fairly susceptible to more than one construction. There is nothing in the policy language, for instance, specifically excluding or including inoperable cars within the above definition. A vehicle, while closely resembling an automobile visually, may have no functional similarity and may therefore be incapable of "independent" movement. See Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Duffin, 28 Mich.App. 142, 184 N.W.2d 229, 231 (1970), rev'd on other grounds, 384 Mich. 812, 184 N.W.2d 739 (1971). Since an automobile designed for use carries within itself a source of power, lack of that power may render it to be something other than what it was designed for.
We thus deem that the language of the policy calls for construction. Ambiguities in an insurance policy prepared by an insurer should be construed against the insurer. Bertler v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 86 Wis.2d 13, 17, 271 N.W.2d 603, 605 (1978). Exceptions to general liability are to be strictly construed against the insurer. Wisconsin Builders, Inc. v. General Insurance Co. of America, 65 Wis.2d 91, 103, 221 N.W.2d 832, 838 (1974). An insurance policy is to be construed to give effect to the intentions of the parties as determined by applying the objective test of how it would be understood by a reasonable lay person in the position of the insured and in accordance with the common and ordinary meaning it would have in the mind of that person. Bertler, 86 Wis.2d at 17-18, 271 N.W.2d at 605.
The purpose of the policy provision in question is to provide "drive-other-cars" liability coverage to a resident relative so long as the relative does not acquire and operate his or her own auto. In that case, the relative should insure his or her own vehicle and thereby obtain "drive-other-cars" coverage through the independent policy. The principal purpose of an independent policy for the relative who obtains an automobile is to provide coverage for that automobile should it become involved in an accident or other mishap. See Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. Gray, 386 F.2d 520, 524-25 (5th Cir.1967). Without these limitations, a person could purchase just one policy on only one automobile and cover relatives using other automobiles frequently driven or at least having the opportunity to be driven. Quinlan v. Coombs, 105 Wis.2d 330, 332, 314 N.W.2d 125, 127 (Ct.App.1981).
It is reasonable for a relative to believe that an automobile, unintended for use unless or until major repairs are made, is an unlikely candidate for liability insurance. Since we construe the policy in favor of insureds, we adopt the majority rule that at some stage in time a vehicle may reach such a condition that it is no longer considered an automobile designed for use on the public highways. Farmers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bateman
...acquired until it is in an operable condition and the Oldsmobile was not operable is based primarily on State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rechek, 125 Wis.2d 7, 370 N.W.2d 787 (Ct.App.1985).6 That case addressed an insurance policy provision that excluded coverage for relatives of the insured in t......
-
Burkett v. American Family Ins. Group
...relative as long as that relative does not acquire his or her own vehicle." Id. at 803 (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rechek, 125 Wis.2d 7, 370 N.W.2d 787, 789-790 (1985)).6 Hence, we agree with American Family that the intent of the definition of term "relative" is to exclude fr......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Goode
...automobile within the meaning of an automobile liability insurance policy ... is a question of fact." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rechek, 125 Wis.2d 7, 370 N.W.2d 787, 790 (1985). Factors to consider in determining if an automobile is operable include the extent of repairs necessary t......
-
Santana v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.
...and by the court in Harshbarger is more fully explained by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rechek (1985), 125 Wis.2d 7, 10-11, 370 N.W.2d 787, 789-790, as " * * * The term 'designed for use' is reasonably or fairly susceptible to more than one constructio......