Wis. Stat. § 632.32
Wis. Stat. § 632.32
A "family exclusion clause" valid in the state of policy issuance will be given effect in Wisconsin. Knight v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co. 71 Wis. 2d 821, 239 N.W.2d 348 (1976). The concept of permissive use is the same regardless of whether it arises under the "any motor vehicle" coverage section of s. 344.33(2) or the omnibuses coverage statute. Gross v. Joecks, 72 Wis. 2d 583, 241 N.W.2d 727 (1976). A "fellow employee" exclusion clause is only valid if the tort-feasor and injured party are employees of the named insured and employer is required to provide worker's compensation coverage. Dahm v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. 74 Wis. 2d 123, 246 N.W.2d 131 (1976). A spouse who was not party to the contract, reasonably believing that coverage existed after the insured spouse's death, must be given a grace period before having to comply with technical, not commonly known provisions of a policy. Handal v. American Farmers Mutual Casualty Co. 79 Wis. 2d 67, 255 N.W.2d 903 (1977). Generally when a permissive user of a vehicle is the real owner of the car for all practical purposes, but not the named insured, and the permissive user grants permission for a 3rd person to use the vehicle, the named insured's permission is implied. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Osusky, 90 Wis. 2d 142, 279 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1979). Injury to a police officer who was stabbed while unloading beer cans from an automobile did not arise out of use of the automobile. Tomlin v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co. 95 Wis. 2d 215, 290 N.W.2d 285 (1980). Third parties may recover against an insurer even though the insured's fraudulent application voided the policy under s. 631.11. Rauch v. American Family Insurance Co. 115 Wis. 2d 257, 340 N.W.2d 478 (1983). Arguments that "reduction clauses" in uninsured motorist provisions were invalid and that a release did not bar subsequent a claim against the insurer for bad faith were frivolous. Radlein v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 117 Wis. 2d 605, 345 N.W.2d 874 (1984). A "drive other car" exclusion that prohibited stacking of uninsured motorist benefits against the same insurer was voided by s. 631.43. Welch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 122 Wis. 2d 172, 361 N.W.2d 680 (1985). A reducing clause in an uninsured motorist provision was voided by [former] sub. (4) (a). Nicholson v. Home Insurance Cos. 137 Wis. 2d 581, 405 N.W.2d 327 (1987). Because uninsured motorist coverage is "personal and portable," the claimant was covered by a policy on a vehicle not involved in the accident. Parks v. Waffle, 138 Wis. 2d 70, 405 N.W.2d 690 (Ct. App. 1987). Loss of consortium is not a separate bodily injury under a policy's "each person" limitation. Landsinger v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 142 Wis. 2d 138, 417 N.W.2d 899 (Ct. App. 1987). An insurer could not avoid uninsured motorist coverage based on a policy provision excluding resident relatives who own their own car. Hulsey v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 142 Wis. 2d 639, 419 N.W.2d 288 (Ct. App. 1987). A reducing clause and "regular use" exclusionary clause violated [former] sub. (4) (a). Niemann v. Badger Mutual Insurance Co. 143 Wis. 2d 73, 420 N.W.2d 378 (Ct. App. 1988). An auto insurer who pays under an uninsured motorist provision is not a tortfeasor or tortfeasor's insurer against whom an injured insured's medical insurer may assert a subrogation claim. Employers Health Insurance v. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, 161 Wis. 2d 937, 469 N.W.2d 172 (1991). A policy may expand but not reduce uninsured motorist coverage. The policy, not the statute, determines coverage beyond the statutory requirements. Fletcher v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 165 Wis. 2d 350, 477 N.W.2d 90 (Ct. App. 1991). A policy cannot limit uninsured motorist coverage to occupants of vehicles. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. Zastrow, 166 Wis. 2d 423, 480 N.W.2d 8 (1992). If the insurer of a vehicle becomes insolvent, the vehicle is uninsured under [former] sub. (4) (a) 2. even though an insurance guaranty association assumes the liability of the insolvent insurer. Fritsche v. Ford Motor Credit Co. 171 Wis. 2d 280, 491 N.W.2d 119 (Ct. App. 1992). To take advantage of sub. (5) (c), a policy must include language that either says permissive users are restricted to the minimum statutory limits of liability or that users may not avail themselves of the policy unless there is no other valid collectible insurance. Carrell v. Wolken, 173 Wis. 2d 426, 496 N.W.2d 651 (Ct. App. 1992). See also Henry v. General Casualty Co. 225 Wis. 2d 849, 593 N.W.2d 913 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2428; Pemper v. Hoel, 2004 WI App 67, 271 Wis. 2d 442, 677 N.W.2d 705, 03-2134. A reducing clause that is unavailable to a tortfeasor and seeks to reduce uninsured motorist benefits by amounts received under worker's compensation is invalid. United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Kleppe, 174 Wis. 2d 637, 498 N.W.2d 226 (1993). Adult members of a named insured's household are capable of giving themselves permission to drive under sub. (5). When the named insured is a corporation and the insurer knows the vehicle is owned by a corporation employee, the owner will be treated as the named insured under sub. (5). Home Insurance Co. v. Phillips, 175 Wis. 2d 104, 499 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1993). When a premium has been paid for underinsured motorist coverage under which no benefits may ever be paid due to the application of policy definitions, the coverage is illusory and against public policy. Hoglund v. Secura Insurance, 176 Wis. 2d 265, 500 N.W.2d 354 (Ct. App. 1993). Despite policy restrictions to the contrary, under sub. (3) separate coverage must be provided to both a named insured and an additional insured when both are actively negligent. Iaquinta v. Allstate Insurance Co. 180 Wis. 2d 661, 510 N.W.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1993). [Former] sub. (4) (a) did not require the named insured in commercial fleet policies, if the named insured is a corporation or government entity, to be interpreted as including all of the entity's employees. Meyer v. City of Amery, 185 Wis. 2d 537, 518 N.W.2d 296 (Ct. App. 1994). The uninsured motorist coverage requirements of s. 632.32 are inapplicable to self-insured entities under s. 344.16. Classified Insurance Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Inc. 186 Wis. 2d 476, 521 N.W.2d 478 (Ct. App. 1994). Sub. (3) (a) does not apply to uninsured motorist coverage so that a permissive user is entitled to increased coverage limits purchased for specifically named persons not including the user. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. v. Steberger, 187 Wis. 2d 681, 523 N.W.2d 187 (Ct. App. 1994). A medical insurer with subrogation rights may be an injured person under [former] sub. (4). An auto insurance policy providing that uninsured motorist coverage does not apply to persons claiming by right of subrogation impermissibly reduces coverage that the statute mandates for injured persons. WEA Insurance Corp. v. Freiheit, 190 Wis. 2d 111, 527 N.W.2d 363 (Ct. App. 1994). No policy issued pursuant to the ch. 344 financial responsibility statutes may exclude coverage for persons related by blood or marriage to the operator as mandated by s. 632.32(6) (b) 1 Bindrim v. Colonial Ins. Co. 190 Wis. 2d 525, 527 N.W.2d 321 (1995). This section does not prevent the exclusion of coverage of vehicles used solely on the insured's premises. Rea v. Transportation Ins. Co. 191 Wis. 2d 271, 528 N.W.2d 79 (Ct. App. 1995). This section does not distinguish between an owner and a named insurer. A policy that excludes coverage to the owner of a vehicle covered by the policy violates this section. Kettner v. Wausau Insurance Cos. 191 Wis. 2d 724, 530 N.W.2d 399 (Ct. App. 1995). When the insurer defines uninsurance as including underinsurance, all case law concerning an insurer's duties and limitations in an uninsurance situation apply. Kuhn v. Allstate Ins. Co. 193 Wis. 2d 50, 532 N.W.2d 124 (1995). An uninsured motorist policy that restricted coverage to cases when the insured is "hit" or "struck" was void. A bite by a dog tied in a parked vehicle was the result of use of the vehicle and subject to coverage. Trampf v. Prudential Property & Casualty Co. 199 Wis. 2d 380, 544 N.W.2d 596 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-0264. Under the subrogation provision of [former] sub. (4) (b), there is no requirement that the insurer plead setoff or file a counterclaim in order to recover payments made to or on behalf of its insured. Jones v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 212 Wis. 2d 165, 567 N.W.2d 904 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1183. When the named insured is a corporation, but the insurer knows the covered vehicles are owned by individuals and used by family members, this section does not distinguish between the owner of the vehicle and the named insured in determining coverage. Greene v. General Casualty Co. 216 Wis. 2d 152, 576 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2578. [Former] sub. (4) does not prohibit the application of a policy arbitration clause to a disputed claim under the policy's uninsured motorist clause. Jones v. Poole, 217 Wis. 2d 116, 579 N.W.2d 739 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-1430. Because a business operates under a variety of "d/b/a" designations and provides a spectrum of services, some of which qualify under sub. (5) (c) and some of which do not, does not operate to bar the coverage restrictions under that paragraph. That a policy names a "d/b/a" designation does not prevent looking to the entire legal entity to apply sub. (5) (c). Binon v. Great Northern Insurance Co. 218 Wis. 2d 26, 580 N.W.2d 370 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-0710. Neither statutes nor case law expressly prohibit territorial limitations on uninsured motorist coverage. A clause restricting the territorial application of uninsured motorist coverage is valid. Clark v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 218 Wis. 2d 169, 577 N.W.2d 790 (1998), 97-0970. No hit and run under [former] sub. (4) (a) 2. b. occurred when the insured's vehicle was struck by ice that dislodged from an unidentified truck as it passed. Dehnel v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 231 Wis. 2d 14, 604 N.W.2d 575 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-3187. [Former] sub. (4) required uninsured motorist coverage when a detached piece of an unidentified motor vehicle is propelled into the insured's motor vehicle by an unidentified motor vehicle. Theis v. Midwest Security Insurance Co. 2000 WI 15, 232 Wis. 2d 749, 606 N.W.2d 162, 98-2552. Sub. (5) (j) allows "drive other car" exclusions in only very narrow and specific circumstances. It did not allow exclusion of uninsured motorist coverage for an insured injured while occupying a fire truck in the course of her employment. Blazekovic v. City of Milwaukee, 2000 WI 41, 234 Wis. 2d 587, 610 N.W.2d 467, 98-1821. See also Nischke v. Aetna Health Plans, 2008 WI App 190, 314 Wis. 2d 774, 763 N.W.2d 554, 08-0807. Although only one parent was the named insured under an uninsured motorist insurance policy paying benefits for the wrongful death of their child, s. 895.04 requires payment of the proceeds to both parents. The purpose of the coverage is to reimburse the victim. If the victim is deceased the compensation must go to the victim's survivors, not to other insureds. Bruflat v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 2000 WI App 69, 233 Wis. 2d 523, 608 N.W.2d 371, 99-2049. Neither sub. (6) nor s. 344.33 requires an automobile insurance policy to include motorcycle coverage. Beerbohm v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 2000 WI App 105, 235 Wis. 2d 182, 612 N.W.2d 338, 99-1784. No statute requires a self-insured entity under s. 344.16 to provide uninsured motorist coverage as part of the optional insurance it offers to its customers. Prophet v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Inc. 2000 WI App 171, 238 Wis. 2d 150, 617 N.W.2d 225, 99-0776. A hit and run under [former] sub. (4) (a) 2. b. requires: 1) an unidentified motor vehicle that; 2) is involved in a "hit;" and 3) "runs" from the accident scene. Physical contact must be present. A hit and run occurs when an unidentified vehicle hits an intermediate vehicle, propelling it into the insured vehicle. Smith v. General Casualty Co. 2000 WI 127, 239 Wis. 2d 646, 619 N.W.2d 882, 98-1849. This section applies only to policies issued and delivered in Wisconsin. Danielson v. Gasper, 2001 WI App 12, 240 Wis. 2d 633, 623 N.W.2d 182, 00-0950. When underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $25,000 was contracted for in violation of the requirement for $50,000 coverage under [former] sub. (4m) (d), the higher level of coverage was read into the policy under s. 631.15(3m), even though it was not reflected in the premium paid. Brunson v. Ward, 2001 WI 89, 245 Wis. 2d 163, 629 N.W.2d 140, 98-3002. The statute of limitations for subrogation claims under sub. (4) (a) 3. [now sub. (4) (c)] is the statute of limitations on the underlying tort. Schwittay v. Sheboygan Falls Mutual Insurance Co. 2001 WI App 140, 246 Wis. 2d 385, 630 N.W.2d 772, 00-2445. Sub. (6) (a) was applicable to a general liability policy that contained an endorsement for non-owned liability coverage. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wilber, 2001 WI App 247, 248 Wis. 2d 111, 635 N.W.2d 631, 01-0017. An underinsured motorist provision that required the named insurer to be an occupant of an insured vehicle violated sub. (6) (b) 2. a. because the occupancy requirement had the effect of excluding coverage for a named insured. Mau v. North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund, 2001 WI 134, 248 Wis. 2d 1031, 637 N.W.2d 45, 00-1369. See also Ruenger v. Soodsma, 2005 WI App 79, 281 Wis. 2d 228, 695 N.W.2d 840, 04-1795. An underinsured motorist provision that required the named insurer to be an occupant of an insured vehicle was a "drive other car" exclusion under sub. (5) (j) because it had the effect of excluding coverage for a named insured not occupying the insured vehicle. Because the vehicle was a rental vehicle, it did not meet the requirement of sub. (5) (j) 1. that a vehicle subject to a permissible "drive other car" exclusion must be owned by a named insured or related party. Mau v. North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund, 2001 WI 134, 248 Wis. 2d 1031, 637 N.W.2d 45, 00-1369. For actions seeking coverage under an underinsured motorist policy, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of loss, which is the date on which a final resolution is reached in the underlying claim against the tortfeasor, be it through denial of that claim, settlement, judgment, execution of releases, or other form of resolution, whichever is the latest. Yocherer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 2002 WI 41, 252 Wis. 2d 114, 643 N.W.2d 457, 00-0944. Sub. (3) (b) does not extend policy-limits protection to both the tortfeasor and the person or persons vicariously liable for the tortfeasor's wrongdoing. A person to whom the negligence of another is imputed is not entitled to separate liability coverage. Folkman v. Quamme, 2003 WI 116, 264 Wis. 2d 571, 665 N.W.2d 857, 02-0261. Sub. (6) (b) 2. a. only prohibits excluding coverage for certain individuals relating to the insured vehicle. An exclusion barring coverage for a non-owned vehicle is not prohibited. Gulmire v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 2004 WI App 18, 269 Wis. 2d 501, 674 N.W.2d 629, 03-1199. A self-insured city is not an insurer writing policies subject to [former] s. 632.32(4m) (a) 1 and is not subject to the requirement to provide underinsured motorist coverage. Van Erden v. Sobczak, 2004 WI App 40, 271 Wis. 2d 163, 677 N.W.2d 718, 02-1595. Sub. (3) extended coverage under an umbrella policy with an endorsement covering vehicles of the policy owners' daughter to include liability for an accident involving the daughter's car while being driven by a 3rd party with the daughter's permission. Dorbritz v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2005 WI App 154, 284 Wis. 2d 442, 702 N.W.2d 406, 04-1896. Sub. (3) (a) mandates that, except as provided in sub. (5), coverage provided to the named insured must apply in the same manner and under the same provisions to any person riding in any motor vehicle described in the policy. Sub. (3) (a) applies to uninsured motorist coverage, regardless of whether that coverage is categorized as liability or indemnity insurance. An insurer cannot cast its "other insurance" clause as an "exclusion" under subsection (5) (e) in order to save the clause from the requirements of subsection (3) (a). An "other insurance" clause that operated so that the policy provided primary coverage for a named insured while providing only excess coverage for an occupancy insured violated sub. (3) (a). Progressive Northern Insurance Co. v. Hall, 2006 WI 13, 288 Wis. 2d 282, 709 N.W.2d 46, 04-0688. Neither sub. (3) (a) or (b) requires an insurance policy to provide separate limits of liability to both a person permissively using the covered vehicle and the named insured who is liable by statute for imputed negligence as a sponsor for a minor's driver license, for the minor's negligent operation of a vehicle. LaCount v. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, 2006 WI 14, 288 Wis. 2d 358, 709 N.W.2d 418, 03-3258. A full-service car wash where vehicles are serviced and driven by employees is a service station and therefore a statutory motor vehicle handler under sub. (2) (b). Rocker v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 WI 26, 289 Wis. 2d 294, 711 N.W.2d 634, 04-0356. The broad scope of the entire section is dependent upon whether a policy includes motor vehicle coverage, but each subsection can include provisions that exempt certain coverages from the scope as defined in sub. (1). An insurer cannot reduce the scope of the section simply because the motor vehicle coverage is issued as part of a comprehensive insurance policy. The statute can apply despite the fact that an insurer's policy excludes coverage for any vehicles owned by the insured, and no vehicles are specifically described in the policy. Under sub. (1), sub. (6) (a) applies to a policy that provides liability coverage for customers' automobiles while on or next to the premises. Rocker v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 WI 26, 289 Wis. 2d 294, 711 N.W.2d 634, 04-0356. Sub. (6) (b) 1. applies to underinsured motorist coverage when issued as part of a policy containing liability insurance. Vieau v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2006 WI 31, 289 Wis. 2d 552, 712 N.W.2d 661, 04-1358. When a tortfeasor injures more than one person in a single occurrence and the injured persons are not insured under the same underinsured motorist policy, a definition of an underinsured motor vehicle that compares the injured person's UIM limits to the limits of a tortfeasor's liability policy without regard to the amount the injured person actually receives from the tortfeasor's insurer is invalid under subs. (4m) [repealed 2009 Wis. Act 28, reenacted 2011 Wis. Act 14] and (5)(i). A UIM policy must provide a fixed level of UIM recovery that will be arrived at by combining payments made from all sources. Welin v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2006 WI 81, 292 Wis. 2d 73, 717 N.W.2d 690, 04-1513. The physical contact element for a hit-and-run accident under [former] sub. (4) (a) 2. b. requires: 1) a hit by the unidentified motor vehicle, or a part thereof, and 2) a hit to the insured's vehicle by another vehicle or part thereof, but not necessarily by the unidentified vehicle. DeHart v. Wisconsin Mutual Insurance Co., 2007 WI 91, 302 Wis. 2d 564, 734 N.W.2d 394, 05-2962. Meyer instructs that a limitation on uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under a commercial policy does not violate [former] sub. (4) (a) as long as the restriction does not apply to the purchaser or policyholder, but only to its employees. There is nothing to indicate that the legislature sought to require UM coverage for employees under commercial fleet policies, whether the absence of coverage arises from the definition of the named insured, which did not include employees, or from the definition of "covered autos," which did not include employees' nonowned autos. Mittnacht v. St. Paul Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., 2009 WI App 51, 316 Wis. 2d 787, 767 N.W.2d 301, 08-1036. "Motor vehicle described in the policy" under sub. (3) is not read to require the importation of a separate and broader definition of "covered auto" from a policy's liability insuring agreement into the policy's uninsured motorist insuring agreement. Mittnacht v. St. Paul Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., 2009 WI App 51, 316 Wis. 2d 787, 767 N.W.2d 301, 08-1036. This section did not extend coverage to a rental car: 1) that the driver was not authorized to drive; 2) that he took without the express permission of either the owner of the car or the lessee of the car; 3) when the named insured in the insurance policy under which coverage was sought was not the owner of the car involved in the accident; and 4) when the adult resident who crashed the car was not a named insured under the insurance policy at issue. For the omnibus statute to require coverage, two factors must be met: 1) the rental vehicle must be a "motor vehicle described in the policy"; and 2) the use of the rental vehicle must be "for purposes and in the manner described in the policy." Neither fact was present. Venerable v. Adams, 2009 WI App 76, 318 Wis. 2d 784, 767 N.W.2d 386, 08-2188. [Former] sub. (4) requires coverage when a detached piece of an unidentified motor vehicle is propelled into the insured's motor vehicle by an identified motor vehicle. There need not be first a "hit" and then a "run" for uninsured coverage. All that is required is that there be both a "hit" and a "run" (namely, a hit resulting from something done by the unidentified vehicle) in any sequence. Tomson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 WI App 150, 321 Wis. 2d 492, 775 N.W.2d 541, 08-2744. A car-rental company issued a certificate of self-insurance under s. 344.16 and subject to liability limits under ss. 344.01(2) (d) and 344.51 was not a self-insurer for purposes of an underinsured motorist clause that excluded coverage for a vehicle owned or operated by a "self-insurer." Bethke v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 2013 WI 16, 345 Wis. 2d 533, 825 N.W.2d 482, 10-3153. During the two-year period when both s. 632.32(5) (j) and (6) (d), 2009 stats., authorizing certain "drive other car" exclusions and prohibiting antistacking provisions in uninsured motorist (UM) coverage were in force, "drive other car" exclusions could not prevent stacking of UM coverage limits for up to three vehicles owned by the same insured. Belding v. Demoulin, 2013 WI App 26, 346 Wis. 2d 160, 828 N.W.2d 890, 12-0829. Affirmed. 2014 WI 8, 352 Wis. 2d 359, 843 N.W.2d 373, 12-0829. When the insurer in this case: 1) required its insured to maintain a liability policy to receive coverage under an excess policy; 2) granted all permissive users coverage in its "Wisconsin Endorsement;" and then 3) excluded all those same permissive users from coverage based upon coverage under the liability policy under an other-insurance clause, it violated sub. (5) (c) and rendered the Wisconsin Endorsement illusory. Hernandez v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 WI App 36, 353 Wis. 2d 730, 844 N.W.2d 657, 13-1286. A person getting ready to direct a driver where to go is not using the vehicle. In determining who constitutes a user of a vehicle for the purposes of an omnibus clause, it is generally required that if one who claims to be a user was not actually driving the vehicle, that individual must have exercised some form of control over it. Jackson v. Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corp., 2014 WI 36, 354 Wis. 2d 327, 847 N.W.2d 384, 12-1644. The common law definition of intra-policy stacking requiring a separate premium attributable to each vehicle in an insurance policy was applicable to sub. (6) (d) as it existed between 2009 and 2011. Bodish v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 WI App 78, 355 Wis. 2d 392, 851 N.W.2d 811, 13-1659. As used in sub. (2) (d), 2009 stats., the phrase "legally entitled to recover" means recovery that exceeds what insureds can actually recover from tortfeasors. The phrase does not thwart underinsured motorist coverage for an insured who has not been fully compensated for his or her damages when the amount of damages an insured could actually recover from a tortfeasor is capped by statute. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Hunt, 2014 WI App 115, 358 Wis. 2d 379, 856 N.W.2d 633, 13-2518. An exclusion of passengers of an insured's vehicle from a policy's underinsured motorist coverage when the insured driver was at fault and was operating a vehicle insured by the policy's liability coverage, although potentially in violation of sub. (6) (b) 2., was enforceable under the savings provision in sub. (5) (e) that exclusions are effective even if incidentally to their main purpose they exclude persons, uses or coverages that could not be directly excluded under sub. (6) (b). Pierce v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 2016 WI App 79, 372 Wis. 2d 171, 887 N.W.2d 115, 15-2408. You Get What You Pay For: Why Wisconsin Should Adopt Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Stacking Waivers. Kempke. 2016 WLR 411. Uninsured motorists coverage: Wisconsin courts open up additional avenues of recovery. Dunphy. WBB Nov. 1982. Politics & Wisconsin Automobile Insurance Law. Jaskulski. Wis. Law. Nov. 2010. Wisconsin's New Automobile Insurance Law. End. Wis. Law. Oct. 2011.