632.32 Annotation Legislative Council Note, 1979: Sub. (1) retains the scope portion of former sub. (1), but the notice provision of former sub. (1) is transferred to new s. 632.26 and broadened to apply to all liability insurance.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (2) (b) continues former sub. (2) (a); pars. (a) and (c) are new definitions in this place, though par. (a) tracks the language of s. 344.01 (2) (b). It would be possible to sharpen up the definition of motor vehicle, though that can only be done on the basis of a policy determination of what policies should be subject to this section. The exact delimitation of the affected class of policies is of less importance than if the section were mandating insurance or purported to change rules of law.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (4) continues former sub. (3) and former s. 632.34 (5) with major editorial changes but without intended change of meaning except to add an unidentified hit-run vehicle as an uninsured vehicle. A precise definition of hit-and-run is not necessary for in the rare case where a question arises the court can draw the line.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (5) continues the permitted provisions of former sub. (2) (b). Par. (d) continues a sentence of former s. 632.32 (2) (b), relocated in relation to other provisions to make its application clearer.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (5) (e) deals with a latent ambiguity in former s. 204.34, carried forward into s. 632.34, which was picked up and noticed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Davison v. Wilson (1975), 71 Wis. 2d 630. The court suggested (at p. 641) that the section should be the subject of a clarifying amendment. The same ambiguity was dealt with by the court in Dahm v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin (1976), 74 Wis. 2d 123. The resolution of the ambiguity in par. (e) is believed to represent the probable intention of the legislature in the original enactment and, in any event, to represent the sound position in public policy.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (6) deals with prohibited provisions. Par. (a) picks up the last sentence of former sub. (2) (b) which was a prohibited rather than a required provision. Par. (b) incorporates what was formerly s. 632.34 (3) in sub. (6) (b) 1., former subs. (5) and (6) in sub. (6) (b) 2., former sub. (2) (a) in sub. (6) (b) 3 and former sub. (2) (b) and (c) in sub. (6) (b) 4. Par. (c) continues the first sentence of former s. 632.34 (4), without change.

632.32 Annotation It escaped the attention of everyone involved in the revision, and not least the principal drafters, that former s. 632.34 (1) narrowed the coverage of old s. 204.34. That has led, in this amendment, to combining most of ss. 632.32 and 632.34 in a single section, numbered 632.32. All parts of s. 632.34 which need to be preserved are transferred to s. 632.32, with the minor exception contained in new s. 632.34. [Bill 146-S]

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation Sub. (4) (a) 2. b. does not mandate coverage for an accident involving the insured's vehicle and an unidentified motor vehicle when there was no physical contact between the vehicles. Hayne v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. 115 Wis. 2d 68, 339 N.W.2d 588 (1983). Affirmed. Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Romanshek, 2005 WI 67, 281 Wis. 2d 300, 697 N.W.2d 417, 04-0740.

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation A motor vehicle operated by an insured driver was not "uninsured" under sub. (4). Hemerley v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 127 Wis. 2d 304, 379 N.W.2d 860 (Ct. App. 1985).

632.32 Annotation A reducing clause in an uninsured motorist provision was voided by sub. (4) (a). Nicholson v. Home Insurance Cos. 137 Wis. 2d 581, 405 N.W.2d 327 (1987).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation A reducing clause and "regular use" exclusionary clause violated sub. (4) (a). Niemann v. Badger Mutual Insurance Co. 143 Wis. 2d 73, 420 N.W.2d 378 (Ct. App. 1988).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation If the insurer of a vehicle becomes insolvent, the vehicle is uninsured under 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).

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation Sub. (4) (a) does 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation A medical insurer with subrogation rights may be an injured person under 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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).

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation Under the subrogation provision of 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.

632.32 Annotation 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 insurer in determining coverage. Greene v. General Casualty Co. 216 Wis. 2d 152, 576 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2578.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation No hit and run under 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.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (4) requires 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.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (5) (i) does not deprive an insured of any state or federal constitutional right to enter into an insurance contract without fraud. An insurer may reduce payments made pursuant to an underinsured motorist clause by amounts received from other legally responsible parties, provided that a fixed level of recovery that will be arrived at by combining payments is clearly stated. Dowhower v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 2000 WI 73, 236 Wis. 2d 113, 613 N.W.2d 557, 98-2762.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation A hit and run under 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.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation When uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $25,000 was contracted for in violation of the requirement for $50,000 coverage under 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.

632.32 Annotation The statute of limitations for subrogation claims under sub. (4) (a) 3. 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.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (5) (f) contains no requirement that a policy clause contain specific language or that the policy parrot the statute in order for an antistacking provision to be enforceable. Gragg v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 2001 WI App 272, 248 Wis. 2d 735, 637 N.W.2d 477, 01-0178.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (5) (i) 1. does not permit an uninsured motorist insurer to reduce its coverage by an amount the insured received from another uninsured motorist insurer. A reduction for payments by a party responsible for the injury permitted under sub. (5) (i) 1. refers to payments made by or on behalf of a tortfeasor. Janssen v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. 2002 WI App 72, 251 Wis. 2d 660, 643 N.W.2d 857, 01-1302.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation Although a reducing clause in the underinsured motorist (UIM) provisions of a policy may comport with the requirements of sub. (5) (i), it may not, when viewed in the context of the entire policy, clearly set forth that the insured is purchasing a fixed level of UIM recovery arrived at by combining payments from all sources. In that case, the reducing clause is ambiguous and unenforceable, and renders the UIM coverage illusory. Badger Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schmitz, 2002 WI 98, 255 Wis. 2d 61, 647 N.W.2d 223, 00-2682.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation An insurer is not barred from creating a traditional limit on liability for bodily injury because the limit is not expressly authorized by sub. (5) (f). The focus of sub. (5) (f) is directed at policy provisions affecting uninsured- or underinsured-motorist coverage, or other coverage that implicates coverage to more than one vehicle. To read its scope beyond this subject matter is unreasonable. Folkman v. Quamme, 2003 WI 116, 264 Wis. 2d 571, 665 N.W.2d 857, 02-0261.

632.32 Annotation 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 Company, 2004 WI App 18, 269 Wis. 2d 501, 674 N.W.2d 629, 03-1199.

632.32 Annotation A self-insured city is not an insurer writing policies subject to 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.

632.32 Annotation The fact that an insurance policy may include arguably ambiguous language upon which the insurer has not relied is of no consequence and will not defeat the right of an insurer to reduce its limits of liability under a valid provision under sub. (5) (i). Remiszewski v. American Family Insurance Co. 2004 WI App 175, 276 Wis. 2d 167, 687 N.W.2d 809, 03-2653.

632.32 Annotation A valid anti-stacking provision need not be a word-for-word mirror of sub. (5) (f). Remiszewski v. American Family Insurance Co. 2004 WI App 175, 276 Wis. 2d 167, 687 N.W.2d 809, 03-2653.

632.32 Annotation There is no "magic language" required by sub. (5) (i). A reducing clause does not have to mirror the language of the statute. The phrase "or any similar law" following a reference to worker's compensation benefits was not an invalid attempt to reduce payments from sources not permitted under sub. (5) (i). Myers v. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, 2005 WI App 49, 279 Wis. 2d 432, 694 N.W.2d 723, 04-0827.

632.32 Annotation 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 Company, 2005 WI App 154, 284 Wis. 2d 442, 702 N.W.2d 406, 04-1896.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation 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.

632.32 Annotation 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 Company, 2006 WI 26, 289 Wis. 2d 294, 711 N.W.2d 634, 04-0356.

632.32 Annotation 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 Company, 2006 WI 26, 289 Wis. 2d 294, 711 N.W.2d 634, 04-0356.

632.32 Annotation An umbrella policy insures with respect to a particular motor vehicle when the policy requires underlying insurance that does. Accordingly, under sub. (4m), an insurer is required to notify its insured of the availability of underinsured motorist coverage under the umbrella policy. Under the circumstances of the case, that there was not a brief description of the coverage in the umbrella policy as required by sub. (4m) was not fatal when the underlying automobile policy gave the insured underinsured motorist coverage and also defined the coverage in a special full-page endorsement attached to the policy. Rebernick v. Wausau General Insurance Co. 2006 WI 27, 289 Wis. 2d 324, 711 N.W.2d 621, 04-0487.

632.32 Annotation 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 Company, 2006 WI 31, 289 Wis. 2d 552, 712 N.W.2d 661, 04-1358.

632.32 Annotation 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) 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 Company, 2006 WI 81, 292 Wis. 2d 73, 717 N.W.2d 690, 04-1513.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (5) (i) 2. does not allow the reduction of uninsured motorist policy limits by worker's compensation funds that were paid to the state Work Injury Supplemental Benefit Fund because the insured had no dependents. Teschendorf v. State Farm Insurance Companies, 2006 WI 89, 293 Wis. 2d 123, 717 N.W.2d 258, 03-3521.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (5) (f) clearly limits its application to addition of limits applying to different motor vehicles. In this case there was a single motorcycle and two insureds. There was but a single coverage and multiple insureds who were entitled to full and equal protection under sub. (3) (a) and to receive the full "each person" limit under the policy. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Bauer, 2007 WI App 122, 301 Wis. 2d 491, 731 N.W.2d 378, 06-1568.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (5) (i) 1. allows an insurer to reduce the limit of underinsured motorist liability by the amount paid by a non-underinsured motorist tortfeasor. Marotz v. Hallman, 2007 WI 89, 302 Wis. 2d 428, 734 N.W.2d 411, 05-1579.

632.32 Annotation The physical contact element for a hit-and-run accident under 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 Company, 2007 WI 91, 302 Wis. 2d 564, 734 N.W.2d 394, 05-2962.

632.32 Annotation The insured's umbrella insurance applied to motor vehicle liability and constitutes a policy within the meaning of sub. (4m). The insurer was therefore required to provide notice of the availability of UIM coverage under that policy and failure to do so violated the mandate of the statute. Pursuant to s. 631.15 (3m), enforcing the umbrella policy "as if it conformed to the statute" entitles the insureds to only the level of coverage necessary for their policy to conform to sub. (4m) (d), $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident. Stone v. Acuity, 2008 WI 30, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 747 N.W. 2d 149, 05-1629.

632.32 Annotation Sub. (5) (i) permits two independent underinsured motorist (UIM) carriers with two separate policies to each reduce their respective UIM coverages by the liability limits paid by a single tortfeasor. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. v. Kirchoff, 2008 WI App 108, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 07-1342.

632.32 Annotation Uninsured motorist coverage: Wisconsin courts open up additional avenues of recovery. Dunphy. WBB Nov. 1982.