Janikowski v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS.
This text of 523 N.W.2d 130 (Janikowski v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Hilary JANIKOWSKI and Sylvia Janikowski, Plaintiffs,
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,[]
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and Samaritan Health Plan, Defendants,
NATIONAL CAR RENTAL, Proposed-Defendant-Respondent.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
*425 For the plaintiff-appellant the cause was submitted on the briefs of Richard L. Zaffiro of Racine, Wisconsin.
For the proposed-defendant respondent the cause was submitted on the briefs of Otjen, Van Ert, Stangle, Lieb & Weir, S.C., with Patrick R. Russell, of Milwaukee.
Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Sullivan and Schudson, JJ.
SCHUDSON, J.
The issue raised by American Family Mutual Insurance Company in this case is whether an out-of-state car rental lease agreement is an insurance policy requiring uninsured motorist coverage. We hold, however, that whether or not an out-of-state lease agreement is an insurance policy is irrelevant *426 because, under §§ 344.52 and 632.32, STATS., a self-insuring out-of-state rental car agency is not required to provide uninsured motorist coverage. Therefore, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 23, 1987, Tracy Schmidt rented a car from National Car Rental in Illinois. Patrick Janikowski, driving the car in Milwaukee with Schmidt's permission, involved the car in an accident with an uninsured vehicle. Patrick's mother, Sylvia, who was injured while riding in the car, made a claim under the uninsured (UM) portion of her American Family policy. American Family paid Sylvia $25,000 for the injuries she sustained.
Sylvia and her husband subsequently filed suit against USAA, Schmidt's auto insurer, and State Farm, her son's auto insurer. USAA obtained a summary judgment and was dismissed from the case. American Family subsequently intervened in the action and filed a proposed complaint against State Farm for indemnification. American Family also subsequently filed a proposed amended complaint against National Car Rental, a self-insurer, for indemnification. It is only American Family's action against National that is involved in this appeal.
National moved for dismissal and summary judgment, arguing that the Illinois rental lease agreement was not a contract of insurance and, therefore, National was not required to provide Wisconsin UM coverage.[1] The trial court granted National's motion, and American Family appeals.
*427 [1, 2]
We review a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the trial court under § 802.08, STATS. That methodology has been set forth in many of our cases, see Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d 816, 820 (1987), and need not be repeated here. Additionally, this case requires the application of a statute to undisputed facts, which we also independently review. See Millers Nat'l Ins. Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 184 Wis. 2d 155, 164, 516 N.W.2d 376, 378 (1994).
American Family's theory of National's liability is that the rental contract constituted an insurance contract under § 344.52, STATS., which requires lessors of foreign-rented vehicles to be liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of the motor vehicle. Therefore, American Family reasons, under § 632.32(4), STATS., National was required to provide UM coverage, and thus, National should reimburse American Family the money American Family paid to Sylvia.[2]
*428 The rental agreement, which American Family argues is an insurance policy, in part, provides:
9. Liability insurance or qualified self-insurance.
An automobile liability insurance or qualified self-insurance arrangement protects the Authorized Driver on a primary basis in respect to other insurance, for bodily injury or death of another (limits $25,000 each person, $50,000 each accident) and for property damage other than to the Rental Vehicle (limit $25,000) for each accident arising from use of the Vehicle as permitted by this Agreement.
The above arrangement will not provide "Uninsured Motorist" coverage, "Underinsured Motorist" coverage or minimum "No Fault" or any supplementary No Fault unless they are required to be provided by applicable law and cannot be rejected. If required, and not rejectable, the limits will be the minimum required by law.
Whether the rental contract signed in Illinois constitutes a Wisconsin insurance contract is not legally significant. Section 344.52, STATS., requires only that foreign rental car agencies provide liability coverage, which National admits it has a duty to provide. That section does not transform an out-of-state rental lease *429 that comports with National's duty in Wisconsin to provide liability coverage into a duty to provide UM coverage.
Additionally, the rental agreement also does not fall within § 632.32, STATS. Section 632.32, in part, provides:
(1) 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.
. . . .
(4) REQUIRED UNINSURED MOTORIST AND MEDICAL PAYMENTS COVERAGES. Every policy of insurance subject to this section that insures with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state . . ..
(Emphasis added.) Even assuming, only for the sake of argument, that the rental agreement was an insurance policy, the lease agreement is neither "a policy of insurance issued or delivered in this state," nor a "policy of insurance ... that insure [s] ... [a] motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state."
[3]
We also note our recent decision, Classified Insurance Company, Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car, 186 Wis. 2d 478, 521 N.W.2d 177 (Ct. App. 1994), which held that a self-insured vehicle rental company was not required to provide UM coverage to one of its employees who was operating one of its vehicles that was involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist. Although Classified is distinguishable because it involved neither a rental lease agreement nor an out-of-state or foreign, self-insuring vehicle lessor, Classified still is persuasive *430 authority for the proposition that, absent a specific statutory duty, self-insurers are not required to provide UM or UIM coverage. See Millers Nat'l, 184 Wis. 2d at 176-177, 516 N.W.2d at 383 (once first-class city mandated under § 66.189, STATS., to provide UM coverage elects to be a self-insurer, "the City will be considered as any other insurer").
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
523 N.W.2d 130, 187 Wis. 2d 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/janikowski-v-state-farm-mut-automobile-ins-wisctapp-1994.