Preview:

2006  WI  27
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:                                                                  2004AP487
COMPLETE TITLE:
Dale  Rebernick,  Sandra  Rebernick  and  Gregory
Rebernick  by  his  Guardian  ad  Litem,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners,
v.
Wausau  General  Insurance  Company,
Defendant,
American  Family  Mutual  Insurance  Company,
Defendant-Respondent.
REVIEW  OF  A  DECISION  OF  THE  COURT  OF  APPEALS
2005  WI  App  15
Reported  at:  278  Wis.  2d  461,  692  N.W.2d  348
(Ct.  App.  2004  -  Published)
OPINION FILED:                                                             March  30,  2006
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:                                                             January  10,  2006
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:                                                                     Circuit
COUNTY:                                                                    Milwaukee
JUDGE:                                                                     Daniel  A.  Noonan
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:                                                                 BUTLER,  JR.,  J.,  dissents  (opinion  filed).
ABRAHAMSON,  C.J.,  joins  the  dissent.
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
For  the  plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners  there  were  briefs
by  Thomas  A.  Ogorchock  and  Miller  &  Ogorchock,  S.C.,  Milwaukee,
and  oral  argument  by  Thomas  A.  Ogorchock.
For  the  defendant-respondent  there  was  a  brief  by  Emile  H.
Banks,  Jr.,  Vicki  L.  Arrowood,  and  Emile  Banks  &  Associates,
LLC,  Milwaukee,  and  oral  argument  by  Emile  H.  Banks,  Jr.
An  amicus  curiae  brief  was  filed  by  Beth  Ermatinger  Hanan
and  Gass  Weber  Mullins  LLC,  Milwaukee,  on  behalf  of  Wisconsin
Insurance   Alliance,   Civil   Trial   Counsel   of   Wisconsin,   and
Property  Casualty  Insurers  Association  of  America.




An  amicus  curiae  brief  was  filed  by  Lynn  R.  Laufenberg  and
Laufenberg  &  Hoefle,  S.C.,  Milwaukee,  on  behalf  of  the  Wisconsin
Academy  of  Trial  Lawyers.
2




2006  WI  27
NOTICE
This  opinion  is  subject  to  further
editing  and  modification.    The  final
version   will   appear   in   the   bound
volume of the official reports.
No.                                                                       2004AP487
(L.C.  No.                                                                2002CV163)
STATE  OF  WISCONSIN                                                      :                                                              IN  SUPREME  COURT
Dale  Rebernick,  Sandra  Rebernick  and  Gregory
Rebernick  by  his  Guardian  ad  Litem,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners,
v.                                                                        FILED
Wausau  General  Insurance  Company,
MAR  30,  2006
Defendant,
Cornelia G. Clark
Clerk of Supreme Court
American  Family  Mutual  Insurance  Company,
Defendant-Respondent.
REVIEW  of  a  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals.    Affirmed.
¶1    ANN   WALSH   BRADLEY,   J.      Dale   and   Sandra   Rebernick,
along  with  their  minor  son,  Gregory,  petition  for  review  of  a
published  court  of  appeals  decision  affirming  a  circuit  court
order  dismissing  their  claim  against  their  insurer,  American
Family  Mutual  Insurance  Company.1     The  Rebernicks  assert  that
                                                                                                                                         1  See  Rebernick  v.  Wausau  Gen.  Ins.  Co.,  2005  WI  App  15,  278
Wis.  2d  461,                                                            692  N.W.2d                                                    348                                                                        (affirming  an  order  of  the  circuit
                                                                          court  for  Milwaukee  County,  Daniel  A.  Noonan,  Judge).




No.                                                                            2004AP487
they   are   entitled   to   retroactively   purchase   underinsured
motorist                                                                       (UIM)   coverage   under   their   umbrella   policy   because
American  Family  failed  to  notify  them  of  the  availability  of  UIM
coverage  under  the  policy  pursuant  to  Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m)
(2003-04).2
¶2    We   determine   that   American   Family   was   required   to
notify  the  Rebernicks  of  the  availability  of  UIM  coverage  under
their  umbrella  policy  pursuant  to                                          §  632.32(4m).     However,  we
also   determine   that,   given   the   circumstances   of   this   case,
American   Family   provided   notice   to   the   Rebernicks   of   the
availability  of  UIM  coverage  under  their  umbrella  policy.    Thus,
we   need   not   address   what   remedy   would   be   appropriate   had
American   Family   failed   to   notify   the   Rebernicks   of   the
availability  of  UIM  coverage.    We  affirm  the  court  of  appeals.
I
¶3    The  facts  are  undisputed  for  purposes  of  our  decision.
Dale  Rebernick  was  seriously  and  permanently  injured  when  the
lawn  mower  he  was  riding  was  hit  by  a  car.     The  driver  of  the
car   had                                                                      $25,000   in   liability   insurance,   which   was   paid   to
Rebernick.    In  addition,  Rebernick  collected  the  $100,000  limits
of   UIM   coverage   under   the   Rebernicks'   automobile   insurance
policy  with  American  Family.
¶4    The  Rebernicks  also  had  a                                            $1  million  umbrella  policy
through  American  Family  that  required  them  to  maintain  their
2  All  subsequent  references  to  the  Wisconsin  Statutes  are  to
the  2003-04  version  unless  otherwise  indicated.
2




No.                                                                          2004AP487
underlying  automobile  policy  as  primary  insurance.     They  sued
American  Family  for  additional  funds  under  the  umbrella  policy.
Although  the  terms  of  the  umbrella  policy  expressly  excluded  UIM
coverage,  the  Rebernicks  asserted  that  they  were  entitled  to
reformation  of  the  policy  because  American  Family  had  failed  to
provide  them  with  notice  of  the  availability  of  UIM  coverage  for
that  policy.     Such  notice,  they  asserted,  was  required  under
§  632.32(4m).3
3  Wisconsin  Stat.                                                          §  632.32(4m)  reads  in  pertinent  part   as
follows:
Underinsured  motorist  coverage.                                            (a)1.  An  insurer
writing  policies  that  insure  with  respect  to  a  motor
vehicle   registered   or   principally   garaged   in   this
state  against  loss  resulting  from  liability  imposed  by
law  for  bodily  injury  or  death  suffered  by  a  person
arising  out  of  the  ownership,  maintenance  or  use  of  a
motor  vehicle  shall  provide  to  one  insured  under  each
such   insurance   policy   that   goes   into   effect   after
October                                                                      1,                                          1995,  that  is  written  by  the  insurer  and
that  does  not  include  underinsured  motorist  coverage
written   notice   of   the   availability   of   underinsured
motorist  coverage,  including  a  brief  description  of
the  coverage.     An  insurer  is  required  to  provide  the
notice  required  under  this  subdivision  only  one  time
and  in  conjunction  with  the  delivery  of  the  policy.
2.  An  insurer  under  subd.  1.  shall  provide  to  one
insured  under  each  insurance  policy  described  in  subd.
1.   that  is  in  effect  on  October                                       1,                                          1995,   that  is
written   by   the   insurer   and   that   does   not   include
underinsured  motorist  coverage  written  notice  of  the
availability    of    underinsured    motorist    coverage,
including  a  brief  description  of  the  coverage.     An
insurer  is  required  to  provide  the  notice  required
under    this    subdivision    only    one    time    and    in
conjunction  with  the  notice  of  the  first  renewal  of
each  policy  occurring  after                                               120  days  after  October  1,
1995.
3




No.                                                                          2004AP487
¶5    American  Family  moved  for  summary  judgment,  asserting
that   the   notice   requirements   of                                      §  632.32(4m)   apply   only   to
primary  automobile  insurance  polices.     The  Rebernicks  countered
with   a   motion   for   declaratory   relief.                              In   addressing   the
motions,  the  circuit  court  noted  that  the  purpose  of  the  statute
is  to  ensure  that  all  insureds  know  of  the  availability  of  UIM
coverage.     It  observed  that  the  Rebernicks  had  purchased  UIM
coverage  in  their  primary  automobile  policy  and  that  they  were
not  alleging  American  Family  failed  to  provide  the  proper  notice
under                                                                        §  632.32(4m)  with  respect  to  that  policy.     Additionally,
the  court  noted  that  the  Rebernicks'  umbrella  policy  states  that
it  does  not  provide  UIM  coverage  unless  the  policy  is  endorsed
to   provide   such   coverage.                                              Thus,   the   court   reasoned,   the
Rebernicks  were  aware  of  the  availability  of  UIM  coverage  under
their  umbrella  policy.
¶6    The  circuit  court  concluded  that  the  purpose  of  the
notice  provisions  in                                                       §  632.32(4m)  was  fulfilled  and  that  the
Rebernicks   were   not   entitled   to   UIM   coverage   under   their
umbrella  policy.    It  therefore  granted  American  Family's  motion,
denied  the  Rebernicks'  motion,  and  dismissed  the  Rebernicks'
claim  against  American  Family.
¶7    The  Rebernicks  appealed.     In  a  split  decision,  the
court  of  appeals  affirmed  the  circuit  court  under  a  somewhat
different  rationale.    The  court  of  appeals  majority  and  dissent
agreed  that                                                                 §  632.32(4m)  applied  to  the  Rebernicks'  umbrella
policy  under  the  plain  language  of  §  632.32(1)  and  (4m),  thereby
requiring   American   Family   to   notify   the   Rebernicks   of   the
4




No.                                                                            2004AP487
availability  of  UIM  coverage  in  their  umbrella  policy.4     The
majority  of  the  court  of  appeals  further  determined  that  the
Rebernicks   were   not   entitled   to   reformation   of   the   umbrella
policy  because  they  knew  both                                              (1)  that  their  umbrella  policy
could  give  them  UIM  coverage  via  an  endorsement  to  that  policy
and                                                                            (2)   what   UIM   coverage   encompassed.   The   Rebernicks
petitioned  for  review.
                                                                               II
¶8    The  central  issue  before  us  is  whether  American  Family
was  required  to  notify  the  Rebernicks  of  the  availability  of  UIM
coverage  under  their  umbrella  policy  pursuant  to                         §  632.32(4m).
In  order  to  address  this  issue,  we  must  interpret  and  apply
statutory  provisions  to  undisputed  facts.    This  issue  presents  a
question  of  law  subject  to  independent  appellate  review.    Phelps
v.  Physicians  Ins.  Co.,                                                     2005  WI                                     85,                ¶25,   282  Wis.  2d  69,   698
N.W.2d  643.
¶9    We   determine   that   American   Family   was   required   to
notify  the  Rebernicks  of  the  availability  of  UIM  coverage  under
their    umbrella    policy    pursuant    to                                  §  632.32(4m).                               Our
determination  is  based  on  the  language  of  §  632.32.    At  the  same
4  Wisconsin  Stat.  §  632.32(1)  provides,  in  pertinent  part,
as  follows:
Scope.  Except  as  otherwise  provided,  this  section
applies   to   every   policy   of   insurance   issued   or
delivered    in    this    state    against    the    insured's
liability  for  loss  or  damage  resulting  from  accident
caused   by   any   motor   vehicle,   whether   the   loss   or
damage  is  to  property  or  to  a  person.
5




No.                                                                              2004AP487
time,    it    is    supported    by    the    history    and    purpose    of
§  632.32(4m),  along  with  a  provision  in  the  administrative  code.
¶10   In     addition,     we     determine     that,     given     the
circumstances  of  this  case,  American  Family  provided  notice  to
the  Rebernicks  of  the  availability  of  UIM  coverage  under  their
umbrella  policy.    Thus,  we  need  not  address  what  remedy  would  be
appropriate  had  American  Family  failed  to  notify  the  Rebernicks
of  the  availability  of  UIM  coverage.
III
¶11   The  Rebernicks  argue  that                                               §  632.32(4m),  read  together
with  the  "scope  clause"  in                                                   §  632.32(1),  makes  clear  that  the
notice   provisions   in                                                         §  632.32(4m)   apply   to   their   umbrella
policy.    In  addressing  their  argument  we  begin,  as  we  must,  with
the  relevant  statutory  language.5
¶12   Section  632.32(1)  provides  as  follows:
Scope.                                                                           Except   as   otherwise   provided,   this
section  applies  to  every  policy  of  insurance  issued  or
delivered    in    this    state    against    the    insured's
liability  for  loss  or  damage  resulting  from  accident
caused  by  any  motor  vehicle  .  .  .
5  At  oral  argument,  the  Rebernicks  emphasized  that  their
argument  is  not  that  all  insurers  are  required  by                        §  632.32(4m)
to  write  all  umbrella  policies  with  UIM  coverage.    Rather,  their
argument   is   that   the   legislature   has   mandated   that   insurers
educate   the   public   as   to   the   availability   of   UIM   coverage.
Likewise,  the  Rebernicks  explain  that  they  are  not  arguing  that
§  632.32(4m)   mandates   coverage   or   limits   "up   to   a   certain
amount."     Rather,  they  argue:     "All  it                                  [§  632.32(4m)]  is,  is  a
notice   requirement."                                                           Accordingly,   we   do   not   address   issues
beyond  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  Rebernicks.
6




No.                                                                          2004AP487
Thus,                                                                        §  632.32(1)  generally  delineates  the  types  of  insurance
policies  to  which  §  632.32  applies.    However,  it  also  qualifies
the  scope  of  §  632.32's  applicability  "as  otherwise  provided."
¶13   Section                                                                632.32(4m),    in    turn,    contains    language
describing   the   types   of   policies   to   which   the   UIM   notice
requirements   apply.                                                        This   language   is   different   from   the
language  generally  delineating  the  types  of  policies  to  which
§  632.32   applies.                                                         Specifically,                                                    §  632.32(4m)   applies   to   an
insurer  writing  polices  that  "insure  with  respect  to  a  motor
vehicle  registered  or  principally  garaged  in  this  state  against
loss  resulting  from  liability  imposed  by  law  for  bodily  injury
or  death  suffered  by  a  person  arising  out  of  the  ownership,
maintenance  or  use  of  a  motor  vehicle."
¶14   In   an   opinion   also   released   today,   Rocker   v.   USAA
Casualty  Insurance  Co.,                                                    2006  WI                                                         26,                                 ¶37,   ___  Wis.  2d  ___,   ___
N.W.2d  ___,   this   court   explained   how   the   scope   clause   in
§  632.32(1)  works  in  relation  to  other  subsections  of  §  632.32:
According  to  Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(1),  "[e]xcept  as
otherwise   provided,   this   section   applies   to   every
policy  of  insurance  issued  or  delivered  in  this  state
against  the  insured's  liability  for  loss  or  damage
resulting    from    accident    caused    by    any    motor
vehicle  .  .  .                                                             ."    Hence,  the  broad  scope  of  the  entire
section  is  dependent  upon  whether  a  policy  includes
motor   vehicle   coverage,   but   each   subsection   can
include  provisions  which  exempt  certain  coverages  from
the  scope  as  defined  in                                                  §  632.32(1).     Therefore,  in
any  particular  case,  it  is  improper  to  conclude  that,
because  one  subsection  has  been  held  to  apply  to  a
certain  type  of  policy,  all  the  other  subsections  must
be  held  to  apply  as  well.    Each  subsection  can  provide
its  own  exemptions  under  the  statutory  framework.
7




No.                                                                            2004AP487
Thus,   the   court   in   Rocker   determined,   "[t]he   language   of
§  632.32(1)  unambiguously  requires  every  insurance  policy  that
provides    motor    vehicle    liability    coverage    to    meet    the
requirements   of   the   other   sections   of   the   omnibus   statute,
unless  otherwise  provided."     Id.,                                         ¶46;  see  also  Heritage  Mut.
Ins.  Co.  v.  Wilber,                                                         2001  WI  App                                                   247,                                                                         ¶17,                                                         248  Wis.  2d  111,                                635
N.W.2d  631                                                                                                                                    (general  liability  policy  fell  within                                                                                                                                                    §  632.32(1)'s
scope  provision  when  it  provided  automobile  liability  coverage).6
¶15   The   Rebernicks'   umbrella   policy   includes   automobile
liability  coverage.    For  example,  the  policy  covers  an  insured's
liability  for  an  accident  causing  personal  injury  or  property
damage  arising  out  of  the  use  of  a  car  the  insured  owns.    Thus,
there   can   be   no   real   dispute   that   the   Rebernicks'   umbrella
policy  falls  within  the  general  scope  of  §  632.32(1).    In  other
words,   there   can   be   no   real   dispute   that   the   policy   was
"issued  .  .  .  against  the  insured's  liability  for  loss  or  damage
6  The  parties  debate  the  import  of  Jaderborg  v.  American
                                                                               Family  Mutual  Insurance  Co.,                                                                                                              2000  WI  App                                                246,                                                                      239  Wis.  2d  533,
620  N.W.2d  468                                                               (applying                                                                                                                                                                                                 §  632.32(6)(b)1.  and  2.  to  an  umbrella
policy).                                                                                                                                                                                                                    That   case,   however,   is   not   determinative   here.
                                                                                                                                               Likewise,  other  cases  in  which  the  court  of  appeals  has  applied
                                                                                                                                               subsections  of  §  632.32  other  than  (4m)  to  umbrella  policies  are
                                                                                                                                               not  necessarily  determinative.    See  Dorbritz  v.  American  Family
Mut.   Ins.   Co.,                                                             2005   WI   App                                                 154,                                                                         ¶14,                                                                                                            284   Wis.  2d  442,                         702
                                                                               N.W.2d  406;  Heritage  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Wilber,                                                                                                                                                                                                         2001  WI  App                                247,
¶17,                                                                           248  Wis.  2d  111,                                                                                                                                                                                       635  N.W.2d  631.     As  this  court  explained
                                                                               in  Rocker  v.  USAA  Casualty  Insurance  Co.,                                                                                                                                                           2006  WI                                           26,                    ¶37,                  ___
Wis.  2d  ___,                                                                 ___   N.W.2d  ___,   "in   any   particular   case,   it   is
improper  to  conclude  that,  because  one  subsection  has  been  held
to  apply  to  a  certain  type  of  policy,  all  the  other  subsections
must  be  held  to  apply  as  well."
8




No.                                                                           2004AP487
resulting    from    accident    caused    by    any    motor    vehicle."
Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(1).
¶16   Consistent  with  Rocker,  however,  we  must  also  examine
the  language  in                                                             §  632.32(4m),  asking  whether  that  subsection  of
the   statute   includes   any   provisions   that   would   exempt   the
Rebernicks'   umbrella   policy   from   the   scope   of                     §  632.32   as
defined  in  §  632.32(1).    We  therefore  return  to  the  language  of
§  632.32(4m),   which   we   read   to   confine   that   subsection's
applicability  to  policies  that  "insure  with  respect  to  a  motor
vehicle  registered  or  principally  garaged  in  this  state  against
loss  resulting  from  liability  imposed  by  law  for  bodily  injury
or  death  arising  out  of  the  ownership,  maintenance  or  use  of  a
motor  vehicle."
¶17   The  Rebernicks'  umbrella  policy  insures  "against  loss
resulting  from  liability  imposed  by  law  for  bodily  injury  or
death  arising  out  of  the  ownership,  maintenance  or  use  of  a
motor   vehicle."                                                             American   Family   asserts,   however,   that
§  632.32(4m)  does  not  apply  to  the  Rebernicks'  umbrella  policy
because  of  the  first  part  of  the  excerpted  language.    It  focuses
on  the  phrase  "with  respect  to  a  motor  vehicle  registered  or
principally  garaged  in  this  state."                                       (Emphasis  added.)    American
Family  construes  this  language  to  mean  that  §  632.32(4m)  applies
only  to  policies  that  insure  with  respect  to  a  particular  motor
vehicle.    According  to  American  Family,  the  Rebernicks'  umbrella
policy,  unlike  a  primary  automobile  insurance  policy,  does  not
insure  with  respect  to  a  particular  motor  vehicle.
9




No.                                                                          2004AP487
¶18   We   are   not   persuaded   that   such   a   construction   of
§  632.32(4m)  carries  the  day  for  American  Family.     The  statute
does  not  say,  as  American  Family's  argument  suggests,  that  the
policy   must   insure   "with   respect   to   a   particular   motor
vehicle  named   or   described   in   the   umbrella   policy.  .  .        ."
Rather,  the  statute  simply  says  that  the  policy  must  insure
"with   respect   to   a   motor   vehicle  registered   or   principally
garaged  in  this  state  .  .  .                                            ."
¶19    Even    assuming,    however,    that    American    Family's
interpretation  is  correct,  the  Rebernicks'  umbrella  policy  does
insure   with   respect   to   a   particular   motor   vehicle.             Their
umbrella   policy,   like   any   "true"   umbrella   policy,   requires
underlying  primary  insurance.7    In  the  center  of  the  declaration
page  of  the  umbrella  policy  appears  a  heading  in  bold  capital
letters:    "SCHEDULE  OF  UNDERLYING  INSURANCE."    Immediately  below
that  heading,  the  umbrella  policy  declaration  page  references
the   underlying   primary   "Car   Liability   Insurance"   policy,
together   with   the   underlying   insurance   policy   limits.            The
declaration   page   is   specifically   made   part   of   the   umbrella
policy.
¶20   The  terms  of  the  policy  require,  as  a  condition  of
insurance,   that   there   be   underlying   automobile   insurance
coverage   in   a   specified   amount.                                      The   underlying   primary
                                                                             7  Treder  v.  LST,  Ltd.  P'ship,   2004  WI  App                           75,        ¶14,   271
Wis.  2d  771,                                                               679  N.W.2d  555,  review  denied,                                           2004  WI   114,   273
Wis.  2d  656,                                                               684  N.W.2d                          137;  Oelhafen  v.  Tower  Ins.  Co.,                     171
Wis.  2d  532,  537-38,  492  N.W.2d  321  (Ct.  App.  1992).
10




No.                                                                           2004AP487
automobile   policy,   in   turn,   refers   to   a   particular   motor
vehicle.     Thus,  the  Rebernicks'  umbrella  policy  insures  "with
respect"   to   a   particular   motor   vehicle   that   is   named   or
described   in   the   policy   by   incorporation   of   the   underlying
policy.
¶21   Our  reading  of  the  statute  is  thus  consistent  with  the
court   of   appeals'   interpretation   of   the   statute.                  Both   the
majority   and   dissent   of   the   court   of   appeals   agreed   that
American   Family   was   required   to   provide   the   Rebernicks   with
notice  of  the  availability  of  UIM  coverage  under  their  umbrella
policy  pursuant  to  the  plain  language  of  §  632.32(1)  and  (4m).
¶22   Also   consistent   with   our   reading,   at   least   one
commentator   has   criticized   the   interpretation   advanced   by
American  Family  and  accepted  by  another  court.    The  gist  of  the
criticism  is  that  this  interpretation  ignores  the  reality  that
an   umbrella   policy   typically   requires   an   underlying   primary
policy:
[O]ne  judicial  decision,  sustaining  the  view  that  an
insurer  providing  excess  coverage  is  not  subject  to
the   statutory   requirement,   reasoned   that   "umbrella
policies  insure  the  policy  holder  in  general,  rather
than  a  particular  automobile  within  the  state"  and,
therefore,  "umbrella  insurance  policies  are  not  issued
'with   respect   to   a   motor   vehicle   registered   or
principally   garaged   in   this   commonwealth.  .  .                       .'"
However,  this  observation  seems  to  ignore  the  fact
that   the   coverage   provided   by   excess                                (including
umbrella)  insurance  is  generally  conditioned  on  the
existence    of    one    or    more    primary    coverages.
Typically,  for  example,  an  insurer  providing  a  layer
of    excess    liability    insurance——which    applies    to
liability   arising   from   the   operation   of   a   motor
vehicle——will  require  the  insured  to  have  a  specified
11




No.                                                                           2004AP487
amount  of  primary  motor  vehicle  liability  insurance
coverage.
Alan  I.  Widiss  &  Jeffrey  E.  Thomas,  3  Uninsured  and  Underinsured
Motorist   Insurance,                                                         §  32.5,   at                                                         25                                   (3d   ed.    2005)   (footnote
omitted;  quoting  Stoumen  v.  Public  Serv.  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,               834
F.  Supp.  140,  143  (E.D.  Pa.  1993)).
¶23   Thus,  it  is  something  of  a  fiction  to  suggest  that  an
umbrella  policy  does  not  insure  with  respect  to  a  particular
motor  vehicle  when  the  policy  requires  underlying  insurance  that
does.    Accordingly,  we  determine  that  pursuant  to                      §  632.32(4m),
American  Family  was  required  to  notify  the  Rebernicks  of  the
availability  of  UIM  coverage  under  their  umbrella  policy.
¶24   The  sparse  legislative  history  of                                   §  632.32(4m)  does
not  suggest  otherwise.     The                                              1995  bill  that  led  to  the  adoption
of   subsection                                                               (4m)   related   to   "stacking   of   motor   vehicle
                                                                              insurance  coverage  and  drive-other-car  exclusions  under  motor
vehicle  policies."                                                           1995  S.B.                                                            6,  Legislative  Reference  Bureau
drafting  file;  see  also                                                    1995  Wis.  Act                                                       21.                                  Subsection   (4m),
however,  was  added  in  an  Assembly  substitute  amendment  offered
by  the  Committee  on  Insurance,  Securities  and  Corporate  Policy.
Id.    Nothing  in  the  legislative  drafting  file  suggests  that  the
legislature  intended  that  all  umbrella  policies  be  exempt  from
the   notice   requirements   under   subsection                              (4m).                                                                 The   final
version  of  the  act  states  that  its  purpose,  in  relevant  part,
relates    simply    to    "notification    of    the    availability    of
underinsured  motorist  coverage."                                            1995  Wis.  Act  21.
12




No.                                                                           2004AP487
¶25   From  both  the  language  of  the  statute  and  the  sparse
legislative  history,  it  is  thus  evident  that  a  central  purpose
of                                                                            §  632.32(4m)  is  to  ensure  that  all  insureds  know  of  the
availability  of  UIM  coverage.    Put  another  way,  the  legislature
has  determined  that  where  UIM  coverage  is  available,  insureds
should  know  about  it.     The  interpretation  of                          §  632.32(4m)  to
require   that   American   Family   notify   the   Rebernicks   of   the
availability   of   UIM   coverage   under   their   umbrella   policy
comports  with  this  purpose.
¶26   We   note   that   in   some   states,   the   legislature   has
expressly    exempted    umbrella    policies    from    uninsured    or
underinsured   motorist   statutes.                                           See,   e.g.,   Cal.   Ins.   Code
§  11580.2(a)  (2006);  Kan.  Stat.  Ann.  §  40-284(a)  and  (b)  (2004);
see   also   Lisa   K.   Gregory,   "Excess"   or   "umbrella"   Insurance
Policy  As  Providing  Coverage  for  Accidents  with  Uninsured  or
Underinsured   Motorists,                                                     2   A.L.R.5th                                                       922,    §  3   (1992).   Our
legislature,  in  contrast,  has  not.
¶27   In                                                                      1987,  the  Office  of  the  Commissioner  of  Insurance
promulgated    a    regulation    specifically    exempting    umbrella
policies  from  the  requirements  of                                         §  632.32(4),  the  statutory
provision   that   mandates   uninsured   motorist   coverage.                See
Wis.  Admin.  Code  §  Ins  6.77;  Wis.  Admin.  Register,  May  15,  1987,
No.  377.    In  the  more  than  10  years  that  have  passed  since  the
legislature   amended                                                         §  632.32   to   include   subsection                               (4m),
however,  the  Commissioner  has  not  promulgated  a  rule  exempting
umbrella  policies  from  the  requirements  of                               (4m),  the  statutory
provision   that   mandates   notice   of   the   availability   of   UIM
13




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             No.                   2004AP487
coverage.                                                                                                                                                 We    view    this    as    further    support    for    our
interpretation   of                                                                                                                                       §  632.32(4m),   that   American   Family   was
                                                                              required  to  provide  notice  to  the  Rebernicks  of  the  availability
of  UIM  coverage  in  their  umbrella  policy.8
¶28   When  the  legislature  enacted                                                                                                                                                                                    §  632.32(4m)  in                         1995,  it
                                                                              chose  to  treat  underinsured  motorist  coverage  differently  than
                                                                              it  had  treated  uninsured  motorist  coverage.    The  legislature  had
directly   mandated   that   all   policies   under                                                                                                                                                                                          §  632.32(4)   must
contain    uninsured    motorist    coverage.                                                                                                                                                                                                However,    under
§  632.32(4m)  the  focus  changed,  and  the  legislature  required
"written  notice  of  the  availability  of  underinsured  motorist
coverage."
¶29   At    oral    argument,    counsel    for    American    Family
explained  that  the  reason  for  buying  an  umbrella  policy  is  that
8  The   language   in                                                        §  632.32(4)   describing   the   types   of
policies  to  which  it  applies  is  similar  but  not  identical  to  the
language  in                                                                  §  632.32(4m)  describing  the  types  of  policies  to
which  it  applies.    Section  632.32(4)  applies  to:
Every  policy  of  insurance  subject  to  this  section
that   insures   with   respect   to   any   motor   vehicle
registered   or   principally   garaged   in   this   state
against  loss  resulting  from  liability  imposed  by  law
for   bodily   injury   or   death   suffered   by   any   person
arising  out  of  the  ownership,  maintenance  or  use  of  a
motor  vehicle  .  .  .
Section  632.32(4m),  as  stated  above,  applies  to:
polices  that  insure  with  respect  to  a  motor  vehicle
registered   or   principally   garaged   in   this   state
against  loss  resulting  from  liability  imposed  by  law
for   bodily   injury   or   death   suffered   by   a   person
arising  out  of  the  ownership,  maintenance  or  use  of  a
motor  vehicle  .  .  .
14




No.                                                                           2004AP487
"you  want  to  make  sure  that  everything  you  worked  for  all  your
life   is   now   protected."                                                 Counsel   acknowledged   that   American
Family  had  available  underinsured  motorist  coverage  as  part  of
an   endorsement   to   its   umbrella   policies.                            Yet,   how   would
conscientious  consumers  know  of  its  existence?
¶30   The  legislature  enacted                                               §  632.32(4m)  to  aid  consumers
in  making  responsible  and  informed  decisions  about  the  nature
and   amount   of   insurance   coverage   they   may   need.                 Requiring
insurers  to  provide  to  their  insureds  notice  of  the  availability
of  underinsured  motorist  coverage  is  not  an  onerous  task.    After
all,  as  counsel  for  American  Family  noted:    "American  Family  is
in  the  business  of  selling  insurance.     We  want  to  sell  these
policies   to   those   who   want   them."                                   Giving   the   notice   of
availability,  as                                                             §  632.32(4m)  requires,  will  benefit  both  the
insurer  and  the  insured.
¶31   We  turn  now  to  the  question  of  whether,  given  the
circumstances   presented   here,   American   Family   notified   the
Rebernicks   of   the   availability   of   UIM   coverage   under   their
umbrella  policy  pursuant  to  the  statute.    The  Rebernicks  assert
that   American   Family   failed   to   provide   the   required   notice.
Additionally,  the  Rebernicks  assert  that  the  remedy  for  American
Family's  failure  to  provide  such  notice  is  that  the  umbrella
policy  be  reformed.     What  they  mean  by  this  assertion  is  that
they  should  be  given  the  opportunity  to  retroactively  purchase
UIM  coverage  under  their  umbrella  policy.
¶32   Again,  the  notice  requirements  in  §  632.32(4m)  read  as
follows:
15




No.                                                                           2004AP487
An   insurer   writing   policies                                             [to   which   these
notice  requirements  apply]  .  .  .  shall  provide  to  one
insured  under  each  such  insurance  policy  that  goes
into  effect  after  October  1,  1995,  that  is  written  by
the  insurer  and  that  does  not  include  underinsured
motorist  coverage  written  notice  of  the  availability
of  underinsured  motorist  coverage,  including  a  brief
description  of  the  coverage.     An  insurer  is  required
to  provide  the  notice  required  under  this  subdivision
only  one  time  and  in  conjunction  with  the  delivery  of
the  policy.
Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m)(a)1.                                               (emphasis   added).               Thus,   if   a
policy  under  §  632.32(4m)  does  not  already  include  UIM  coverage,
"an  insurer"  writing  such  policies  must  "provide  to  one  insured"
under  the  policy  "written  notice"  of  the  "availability"  of  UIM
coverage,  including  a  "brief  description"  of  such  coverage.    Id.
At  the  same  time,  however,  "an  insurer"  is  required  to  provide
the   notice   for   each   such   policy   "only   one   time   and   in
conjunction  with  the  delivery  of  the  policy."    Id.
¶33   The   facts   here   reveal   that   the   Rebernicks   were
apparently   aware   of   the   availability   of   UIM   coverage   before
receiving  any  required  notice  because  they  had  requested  such
coverage  in  their  underlying  primary  automobile  policy  before
receipt  of  such  notice.     Their  underlying  primary  automobile
policy   was   issued   with                                                  $100,000   in   UIM   coverage.   American
Family  issued  that  policy  on  April  29,  2001.
¶34   There  is  no  dispute  that  American  Family  provided  the
Rebernicks  with  the  required  notice  under  §  632.32(4m)  for  their
primary  automobile  policy.    This  notice  reads  as  follows:
SPECIAL  NOTICE  TO  POLICYHOLDERS
This  special  notice  is  being  given  in  accordance  with
Wisconsin  law  to  advise  you  of  the  availability  of
16




No.                                                                            2004AP487
Underinsured  Motorist                                                         (UIM)  coverage.     If  you  do  not
presently    carry    UIM    coverage,    this    message    is
especially  important  to  you.
Underinsured   Motorist   coverage   provides   payment   for
legally  collectible  damages  for  bodily  injury  or  death
if  you  or  any  person  riding  in  your  vehicle  is  injured
or  killed  in  an  accident  with  a  vehicle  whose  driver
has  insurance  coverage  that  is  less  than  the  limit  of
your  underinsured  motorist  coverage.
Please   see   the   actual   policy   for   exact   terms   and
conditions.
Contact   your   American   Family   agent   if   you   have
questions  about  this  coverage.
Accordingly,  on  April  29,  2001,  American  Family  had  advised  the
Rebernicks  of  the  availability  of  UIM  coverage  and  had  provided
them  with  a  basic  description  of  the  nature  of  such  coverage.
The  terms  of  the  notice  do  not  limit  its  application  to  only
primary  or  underlying  policies.
¶35   American  Family  issued  the  Rebernicks'  umbrella  policy
approximately  one  week  later,  on  May                                      7,                                                        2001.   Thus,  a  very
short   period   of   time   had   elapsed   since   the   Rebernicks   were
advised   of   the   availability   of   UIM   coverage   by   the   same
insurance   company   that   subsequently   issued   their   umbrella
policy.
¶36   In   addition,   the   umbrella   policy   contained   the
following   exclusion:                                                         "Uninsured/Underinsured   Motorists.                      We
will  not  cover  any  claims  which  may  be  made  under  Uninsured
Motorists  Coverage,  Underinsured  Motorists  Coverage  or  similar
coverage,   unless   this   policy   is   endorsed   to   provide   such
coverage."                                                                     As   the   circuit   court   and   court   of   appeals
recognized,  this  clause  in  the  umbrella  policy  also  alerted  the
17




No.                                                                            2004AP487
Rebernicks  that  UIM  coverage  was  available  under  that  policy  by
way  of  an  endorsement.    This  clause  alone  would  not  be  enough  to
constitute  notice  of  the  availability  of  UIM  coverage  in  an
umbrella  policy  pursuant  to                                                 §  632.32(4m)  because  it  does  not
contain   the   statutorily   required   "brief   description   of   the
coverage."     This  case,  however,  involves  more  than  just  such  a
clause.
¶37   Considering  all  of  these  circumstances  in  combination,
we  determine  that  American  Family  notified  the  Rebernicks  of  the
availability  of  UIM  coverage  under  their  umbrella  policy.    Thus,
we   need   not   determine   what   remedy   would   be   appropriate   if
American  Family  had  failed  to  notify  the  Rebernicks.
¶38   We  caution,  however,  that  the  only  way  for  insurance
companies  to  be  certain  that  they  have  provided  proper  notice
pursuant  to  §  632.32(4m)  is  to  separately  provide  in  each  policy
for  which  notice  is  required  the  type  of  notice  American  Family
provided  to  the  Rebernicks  in  their  primary  automobile  policy.9
Absent   the   provision   of   such   notice                                  (or   notices,   as   the
situation  may  be),  insurers  will  have  no  guarantee  in  future
cases   presenting   different   facts   that   they   have   properly
9  By  this,  we  do  not  suggest  that  the  court  is  giving  its
imprimatur  to  every  word  used  by  American  Family  in  the  notice
or   that   American   Family's   phrasing   is   the   only   permissible
phrasing  for  such  notices  under  §  632.32(4m).
18




No.                                                                            2004AP487
notified  insureds  of  the  availability  of  UIM  coverage  pursuant
to  §  632.32(4m).10
IV
¶39   In  sum,  we  determine  that  American  Family  was  required
to  notify  the  Rebernicks  of  the  availability  of  UIM  coverage
under  their  umbrella  policy  pursuant  to                                   §  632.32(4m).    However,
we  also  determine  that,  given  the  particular  circumstances  of
this   case,   American   Family   notified   the   Rebernicks   of   the
availability  of  UIM  coverage  under  that  policy.     Thus,  we  need
not  address  what  remedy  would  be  appropriate  had  American  Family
failed   to   notify   the   Rebernicks   of   the   availability   of   UIM
coverage  under  their  umbrella  policy.     We  affirm  the  court  of
appeals.
By   the   Court.—The   decision   of   the   court   of   appeals   is
affirmed.
10  We   note   that   this   case   deals   with                              §  632.32(4m)(a)1.,
pertaining  to  policies,  like  those  here,  that  went  into  effect
after  October  1,  1995.
19




                                                                              No.                              2004AP487.lbb
¶40   LOUIS  B.  BUTLER,  JR.,  J.                                            (dissenting).    The  majority
concludes   that   American   Family   was   required   to   notify   the
Rebernicks  of  the  availability  of  Underinsured  Motorists                (UIM)
coverage                                                                      under                            their           umbrella      policy   pursuant   to
Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m).     Majority  op.,                                ¶2.     I  agree  with  this
conclusion  and  join  that  portion  of  the  opinion.
¶41   However,  I  disagree  with  the  majority's  determination
that  American  Family  provided  the  required  notice.      Id.      I
conclude   that   American   Family   failed   to   meet   the   explicit
statutory                                                                     notice                           requirements    established   under
Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m).    Because  the  proper  remedy,  if  any,  for
American   Family's   failure   to   provide   the   notice   cannot   be
determined  based  on  the  present  record,  I  would  reverse  the
court  of  appeals  and  remand  this  matter  to  the  circuit  court  for
further  proceedings.    I  therefore  respectfully  dissent.
I
¶42   The   majority's   summary   of   the   facts   accurately
reflects  the  record  in  this  case.     Majority  op.,                     ¶¶3-7.     In
short,   the   Rebernicks   had   separately   purchased   a   primary
automobile  insurance  policy  and  a                                         $1  million  umbrella  policy
through  American  Family  Insurance.    The  Rebernicks  had  purchased
UIM  coverage  for  their  primary  automobile  insurance  policy,  but
the  terms  of  an  exclusion  in  their  umbrella  policy  purchased  one
week  later  indicated  that  American  Family  "will  not  cover  any
claims"  made  under  Underinsured  Motorists  Coverage  "unless  this
policy  is  endorsed  to  provide"  UIM  coverage.     The  Rebernicks
assert   that   they   are   entitled   to   retroactively   purchase   UIM
1




No.                                                                           2004AP487.lbb
coverage  under  their  umbrella  policy  because  American  Family  had
failed   to   provide   them   with   notice   of   the   availability   or
description  of  UIM  coverage  in  the  umbrella  policy  as  required
under  Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m).
II
¶43   Whether    American    Family    adequately    notified    the
Rebernicks   of   the   availability   of   UIM   coverage   under   their
umbrella                                                                      policy                requires                                                                     the                 application          of
                                                                                                    Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m)  to  undisputed  facts.    The  interpretation
                                                                                                    and  application  of  a  statute  to  undisputed  facts  is  ordinarily  a
                                                                                                    question  of  law  subject  to  independent  appellate  review.    Phelps
v.  Physicians  Ins.  Co.,                                                                          2005  WI                                                                     85,     ¶25,        282  Wis.  2d  69,   698
N.W.2d  643.
                                                                                                    III
¶44   Whether  an  insurer  is  required  to  provide  a  separate
written                                                                       notice                for                                                                          each    insurance   policy               under
Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m),  including  the  umbrella  policy  at  issue
in  this  case,  is  a  matter  of  statutory  interpretation.    I  agree
with  and,  for  purposes  of  this  dissent,  adopt  the  majority's
legal  analysis  regarding  the  proper  interpretation  of  what  is
required   under   the   statute.                                             Majority   op.,       ¶¶11-31.                                                                     Under
§  632.32(4m):
An   insurer   writing   policies                                             [to   which   these
notice  requirements  apply]  .  .  .  shall  provide  to  one
insured  under  each  such  insurance  policy  that  goes
into  effect  after  October  1,  1995,  that  is  written  by
the  insurer  and  that  does  not  include  underinsured
motorist  coverage  written  notice  of  the  availability
of  underinsured  motorist  coverage,  including  a  brief
description  of  the  coverage.     An  insurer  is  required
2




No.                                                                          2004AP487.lbb
to  provide  the  notice  required  under  this  subdivision
only  one  time  and  in  conjunction  with  the  delivery  of
the  policy.
Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m)(a)1.(emphasis  added).     If  an  insured's
policy  does  not  already  include  UIM  coverage,  the  language  of
§  632.32(4m)(a)1.  requires  that  an  insurer  provide  an  insured
with  written  notice,  that  the  notice  inform  the  insured  that  UIM
coverage  is  available  and  include  a  brief  description  of  the
available  coverage,  and  that  the  notice  be  provided  when  the
policy  is  delivered  to  the  insured.    The  statutory  language  also
makes  plain  that  an  insurer  must  provide  the  notice  for  each
policy  to  which  the  statute  applies.
¶45   It  is  undisputed  that  when  the  Rebernicks  were  issued
their  underlying  auto  policy  on  April  29,  2001,  American  Family
provided   the   Rebernicks   with   the   required   notice   for   that
policy.    That  notice  informed  the  Rebernicks  of  the  availability
of  UIM  coverage:
SPECIAL  NOTICE  TO  POLICYHOLDERS
This  special  notice  is  being  given  in  accordance  with
Wisconsin  law  to  advise  you  of  the  availability  of
Underinsured  Motorist                                                       (UIM)  coverage.     If  you  do  not
presently    carry    UIM    coverage,    this    message    is
especially  important  to  you.
Underinsured   Motorist   coverage   provides   payment   for
legally  collectible  damages  for  bodily  injury  or  death
if  you  or  any  person  riding  in  your  vehicle  is  injured
or  killed  in  an  accident  with  a  vehicle  whose  driver
has  insurance  coverage  that  is  less  than  the  limit  of
your  underinsured  motorist  coverage.
Please   see   the   actual   policy   for   exact   terms   and
conditions.
Contact   your   American   Family   agent   if   you   have
questions  about  this  coverage.
3




No.                                                                            2004AP487.lbb
¶46   However,  when  American  Family  issued  the  Rebernicks'
umbrella  policy  on  May  7,  2001,  approximately  one  week  after  the
Rebernicks  obtained  their  primary  automobile  policy,  American
Family    failed    to    include    any    "written    notice"    of    the
availability  of  UIM  coverage,  "in  conjunction  with  the  delivery
of                                                                             the                               [umbrella]   policy,"   as                                  required   by
                                                                               Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m)(a)1.                           Additionally,   American   Family
provided   no   description   of   UIM   coverage   with   the   umbrella
policy.
¶47   The  majority  reasons  that  only  a  short  period  of  time
had   passed   since   the   Rebernicks   had   received   the   required
written  notice  for  their  separate  but  related  underlying  policy,
and  therefore  the  Rebernicks  were  aware  of  the  nature  of  UIM
coverage  available  under  an  American  Family  policy.     Majority
op.,  ¶36.
¶48   In  addition,  the  umbrella  policy  itself  contained  an
exclusion   provision,   which   notified   the   insured   that   UM/UIM
coverage  was  not  included  unless  "this"  policy  was  endorsed  to
provide  such  coverage.    According  to  the  majority,  the  exclusion
provision    contained    in    the    umbrella    policy    alerted    the
Rebernicks  that  UIM  coverage  was  available  under  the  umbrella
policy.    Majority  op.,  ¶37.
¶49   Although   the   majority   concedes   that   the   exclusion
provision  alone  would  not  constitute  notice,  it  concludes  that,
in  view  of  all  the  facts,  American  Family  substantially  complied
with  the  written  notice  requirement.     Majority  op.,                    ¶38.     The
majority   has   essentially   determined   that   American   Family's
4




                                                                                                                                                                  No.                         2004AP487.lbb
compliance                                                                     with                                          the                       notice     requirements                of
Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m)   was   good   enough   with   respect   to   the
Rebernicks'  umbrella  policy.    Id.
¶50   I  disagree.    This  is  not  horseshoes,  and  close  is  not
good  enough.    The  majority  disregards  the  plain  language  of  the
statute.    American  Family  failed  to  notify  the  Rebernicks  of  the
availability  or  description  of  UIM  coverage  under  their  umbrella
policy                                                                         pursuant                                      to                        the        explicit                    requirements    of
Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m).     Consequently,  I  agree  with  the  court
of  appeals'  dissent  that  American  Family  failed  to  meet  the
notice  requirements  for  the  Rebernicks'  umbrella  policy.
¶51   American  Family  did  not  provide  the  Rebernicks  with  a
written  description  of  UIM  coverage  "in  conjunction  with  the
delivery"                                                                      of                                            their                     umbrella   policy,                     as
                                                                               Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m)(a)1.   requires.                                        Thus,   American   Family
did   not   provide   the   required   "written   notice,"   which   must
include  a  "brief  description  of                                            [UIM]  coverage."     The  statute
requires     that     the     notice     be     provided     "under     each
such  .  .  .  policy."                                                        (Emphasis   added.)                           The   fact   that   the
Rebernicks  may  have  been  generally  aware  of  the  nature  of  UIM
coverage  based  on  a  previous  notice  is  insufficient  under  the
plain  language  of  the  statute.
¶52   In    addition,    the    notice    of    exclusion    in    the
Rebernicks'    umbrella    policy    cannot    constitute    sufficient
"written  notice"  of  the  "availability"  of  UIM  coverage.     The
exclusion  merely  indicates  that  UIM  claims  will  not  be  covered
5




No.                                                                            2004AP487.lbb
unless  "this"  policy  is  endorsed  to  provide  such  coverage.1    The
exclusion   does   not   indicate   that   separate   UIM   coverage   is
available,  nor  does  it  describe  the  additional  UIM  coverage  that
is  available.     This  notice  of  exclusion  does  not  satisfy  the
notice  requirements  under  Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m)(a)1.
¶53   Moreover,  under  the  facts  here,  a  reasonable  insured
may  have  been  confused  as  to  just  what  the  exclusion  really
meant.    On  the  one  hand,  a  reasonable  insured  may  have  been  led
to   believe   that   UIM   coverage   was   not   available   under   the
umbrella  policy,  despite  the  exclusion.     A  reasonable  insured
might   infer   that   such   coverage   was   not   available   under   the
policy  because  the  insurance  company  did  not  provide  the  same
separate  "SPECIAL  NOTICE  TO  POLICYHOLDERS"  of  the  availability
of  UIM  coverage  that  it  provided  with  the  underlying  automobile
policy.    Stated  another  way,  a  reasonable  insured  might  believe
that   the   absence   of   the   "special   notice"   with   the   umbrella
policy  indicated  that  UIM  coverage  was  not  available  under  that
policy.
¶54   On  the  other  hand,  a  reasonable  insured  may  have  been
led  to  believe  that  UIM  coverage  was  already  provided  under  the
policy    precisely    because    of    the    "SPECIAL    NOTICE    TO
1  American  Family  asserts  that  the  language  of  exclusion  21
of  the  umbrella  policy  puts  the  insured  on  notice  that  excess
UM/UIM  coverage  can  be  purchased.     The  actual  language  of  the
exclusion  provides:
We  will  not  cover  any  claims  which  may  be  made  under
Uninsured   Motorists   Coverage,   Underinsured   Motorists
Coverage  or  similar  coverage,  unless  this  policy  is
endorsed  to  provide  such  coverage.
6




No.                                                                            2004AP487.lbb
POLICYHOLDERS"   of   the   availability   of   UIM   coverage   that   was
provided  with  the  underlying  automobile  policy.     After  being
given  notice  of  the  existence  of  UIM  coverage,  the  policyholders
(Rebernicks)  elected  to  have  such  coverage.    Since  the  insurance
company  provided  no  new  "SPECIAL  NOTICE,"  a  reasonable  insured
may  have  concluded  that  the  purchase  of  UIM  coverage  made  one
week   earlier   was   sufficient   for   purposes   of   electing   UIM
coverage  in  the  umbrella  policy.
¶55   I   agree   with   the   majority   that   the   best   way   for
insurance  companies  to  be  certain  that  they  have  provided  proper
notice  pursuant  to  Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m)  is  to  comply  with  the
words  of  the  statute.    Majority  op.,  ¶39.    In  fact,  I  assert  an
insurer  is  required  to  comply  with  the  words  of  the  statute.    An
insurer   must   separately   provide   written   notice   of   both   the
availability  of,  as  well  as  a  description  of,  the  available  UIM
coverage  with  each  policy  the  insurer  issues  to  an  insured.
Neither  was  done  here.
¶56   The  question  becomes  what  is  the  proper  remedy  for
American  Family's  failure  to  provide  the  required  notice  for  the
Rebernicks'   umbrella   policy.                                               As   the   majority   notes,   the
Rebernicks  assert  that  the  remedy  is  that  the  umbrella  policy  be
reformed,   meaning   they   should   be   given   the   opportunity   to
retroactively  purchase  UIM  coverage  under  their  umbrella  policy.
Majority  op.,  ¶32.
¶57   Under   Wis.  Stat.  §  631.15(3m),   an   insurance   policy
"that  violates  a  statute  or  rule  is  enforceable  against  the
insurer  as  if  it  conformed  to  the  statute  or  rule."     Thus,
7




No.                                                                          2004AP487.lbb
§  631.15(3m)   provides,   in   effect,   for   reformation   of   an
insurance  policy  that  violates  a  statute.     Yet,  application  of
the  statutory  language  to  the  facts  here  does  not  result  in  a
straightforward  answer  to  the  question  of  what  remedy,  if  any,
is  appropriate.
¶58   If                                                                     American        Family   had   complied   with
Wis.  Stat.  §  632.32(4m)  in  the  issuance  of  the  umbrella  policy,
the  Rebernicks  would  have  received  the  proper  written  notice  in
conjunction  with  their  umbrella  policy.     However,                     §  632.15(3m)
cannot   answer   the   question   of   whether,   had   American   Family
provided  the  notice,  the  Rebernicks  would  have  purchased  UIM
coverage  in  their  umbrella  policy.
¶59   Likewise,  even  assuming  that  they  would  have  purchased
such  coverage,  we  cannot  be  certain  on  this  record  of  whether
(or  to  what  extent)  the  coverage  would  have  applied.     American
Family  argues  that  even  if  the  policy  is  reformed,  a  remand  is
necessary  to  determine  if  any  additional  exclusions  or  reducing
clauses  would  apply  here.    It  asserts  

Download 24676.pdf

Wisconsin Law