Wisconsin Court’s Uninsured Motorist Decision Goes Against State Farm

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against State Farm Insurance Co. in a case in which a policyholder who was in an accident in 2010 tried to apply uninsured motorist coverage from another vehicle they owned to collect more benefits.

State Farm, in refusing coverage, had argued that the other policy couldn’t be tapped because of a provision barring an insured person from using coverage on one car for another one. In this case, the car not involved in the accident was covered under a separate policy.

At the time of the accident there were two laws in place that pertained to the issue of applying benefits from one automobile policy to another owned by the same policyholder.

State Farm relied on Wis. Stat.§ 632.32(5)(j), which the company said permitted its “drive-other-car exclusion” because it allowed “a policy exclusion that would limit an insured’s ability to combine that coverage with another policy,” according to the Court.

The other applicable law, Wis. Stat. § 632.32(6)(d), “prohibited anti-stacking clauses from applying to uninsured motorist coverage,” the Court said.

That section prohibited “insurers from using policy exclusions that would limit an insured’s ability to add the uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage of up to three vehicles.”

The Supreme Court said the anti-stacking law, which allowed the addition of uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage of up to three vehicles, “controlled” because it was more “specific” than the section upon which State Farm relied. That section, the Court said, was less specific in that it “applied to ‘any coverage.'”

The Court’s decision upheld a 2013 appeals court ruling.