X hits on this document

PDF document






7 / 12

Updated 2013−14 Wis. Stats. Published and certified under s. 35.18. January 1, 2015.


Updated 13−14 Wis. Stats.



(8) CANCELLATION FOR NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUM. Subsec- tions (6) and (7) do not apply if the ground for cancellation or non- renewal is nonpayment of the premium and if the notice so states.

(9) IMMUNITY. There is no liability on the part of and no cause of action of any nature arises against any insurer, its authorized representatives, its agents, its employees, or any firm, person or corporation furnishing to the insurer information relating to the reasons for cancellation or nonrenewal, for any statement made by them in complying or enabling the insurer to comply with this sec- tion, or for the provision of information pertaining thereto.

History: 1975 c. 375, 421; 1977 c. 444 s. 11; 1979 c. 102; 1979 c. 110 s. 60 (11); 1981 c. 83; 1985 a. 335; 1989 a. 187, 332, 359; 1991 a. 315; 1995 a. 259; 1997 a. 27; 1999 a. 9; 2007 a. 168; 2013 a. 20.

Cross−reference: See also s. Ins 6.77, Wis. adm. code.

Sub. (2) (c) applies to cancellation of a binder. Terry v. Mongin Insurance Agency, 105 Wis. 2d 575, 314 N.W.2d 349 (1982).

A policy did not lapse as the result of the insured’s failure to pay a renewal premium before the policy’s expiration date when the insurer failed to notify the insured of the nonrenewal or of the premium due. Sausen v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 121 Wis. 2d 653, 360 N.W.2d 565 (Ct. App. 1984).

This section governs cancellation and recision of insurance contracts. WHEDA v. Verex Assurance, Inc. 166 Wis. 2d 636, 480 N.W.2d 490 (1992).

The state was the policyholder of its employee group health policy and it, not the insureds, was entitled to notice of policy changes under sub. (5). Schaefer v. Physi- cians Plus Insurance Corp. 174 Wis. 2d 488, 497 N.W.2d 776 (Ct. App. 1993).

Sub. (5) requires notice of policy changes effected by the insurer, not changes effected by the legislature or the courts. Roehl v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 222 Wis. 2d 136, 585 N.W.2d 893 (Ct. App. 1998), 98−1207.

Under sub. (5), if an insurer offers to renew a policy on less favorable terms within 60 days of the renewal date, the insurer must inform the insured that the terms do not become effective until 60 days after the renewal is sent and that the insured has the same 60 days to cancel. Failure to comply requires the insurer to continue the prior policy terms for an additional period equal to the term of the expiring policy. Hanson v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 224 Wis. 2d 356, 591 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999), 98−0692.

Sub. (5) does not apply to reducing clause changes that are not initiated by the insurer but come into effect by statutory change, even when the insurer gratuitously sends a renewal notice discussing the altered terms. Sukala v. Heritage Mutual Insur- ance Co. 2000 WI App 266, 240 Wis. 2d 65, 622 N.W.2d 457, 99−1339.

An insurer may effectively eliminate the policyholder’s right to renewal if it pro- vides valid notice of nonrenewal. If notice is not provided, the policyholder retains this right, and barring any application of an exception under sub. (4) (b), it may exer- cise its right to a renewal. Magyar v. Wisconsin Health Care Liability Insurance Plan, 2001 WI 41, 242 Wis. 2d 491, 625 N.W.2d 291, 98−3289.

Sub. (2) (c) contemplates 2 separate and distinct forms of notifying an insured of cancellation: postal mailing or personal delivery other than mailing. When the insurer informed the insured of its cancellation by mail, the trial court correctly mea- sured the effective date of cancellation from the date of mailing. Schmitz v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 2005 WI App 76, 280 Wis. 2d 560, 696 N.W.2d 238, 04−1545.

631.37 Special cancellation provisions. The following cancellation provisions apply to the policies specified, whether or not s. 631.36 is also applicable to them.

(1) CANCELLATION UPON REQUEST OF PREMIUM FINANCE COM- PANY. Section 138.12 (12) applies to cancellation on request of a premium finance company.



424.303 applies to cancellation upon request of a creditor.

(3) WORKER’S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. Sections 102.31 (2) and 102.315 (10) apply to the termination of worker’s compensa- tion insurance.

(3m) HEALTH CARE LIABILITY INSURANCE. Section 655.24 (2) (b), (3) and (4) applies to the termination of a health care liability insurance policy.

(4) SPECIAL LIMITATIONS ON CANCELLATION. (a) School bus insurance. Section 121.53 (4) applies to school bus insurance.

(b) Insurance on common carriers. Section 194.41 (2) applies to insurance on common carriers.

(c) Driver education motor vehicles. Section 341.267 (6) applies to motor vehicles used for driver education.

(d) Insurance of juveniles. Section 343.15 (4) (a) applies to motor vehicle policies covering juveniles as described therein.

(e) Motor vehicle liability policy. Section 344.34 applies to motor vehicle liability policies certified under s. 344.31.

(f) Health care liability policy. Section 655.25 applies to insur- ance issued by the mandatory health care liability risk−sharing plan established under s. 619.04.

  • (g)

    Warranty reimbursement insurance policy. Section

    • 632.185

      (2) (e) applies to warranty reimbursement insurance poli-


History: 1979 c. 102 ss. 165, 166; 1985 a. 83; 1989 a. 187; 1991 a. 315; 1993 a. 363; 2003 a. 302; 2007 a. 185; 2009 a. 245.

631.41 Policies jointly issued. Two or more insurers may together issue a policy in which their liability is either several or joint and several. If it is several, the heading of the policy shall conspicuously so state and the policy shall conspicuously state the proportion or amount of premium to be paid to each insurer and the type and the proportion or amount of liability each insurer agrees to assume.

History: 1975 c. 375.

631.43 Other insurance provisions. (1) GENERAL. When 2 or more policies promise to indemnify an insured against the same loss, no “other insurance” provisions of the policy may reduce the aggregate protection of the insured below the lesser of the actual insured loss suffered by the insured or the total indemni- fication promised by the policies if there were no “other insur- ance” provisions. The policies may by their terms define the extent to which each is primary and each excess, but if the policies contain inconsistent terms on that point, the insurers shall be jointly and severally liable to the insured on any coverage where the terms are inconsistent, each to the full amount of coverage it provided. Settlement among the insurers shall not alter any rights of the insured.

(2) FRAUD AS A DEFENSE. Subsection (1) does not affect the right of an insurer to defend against a claim under the policy on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation.

(3) EXCEPTION. Subsection (1) does not affect the rights of insurers to limit, restrict, reduce, or exclude coverage under s. 632.32 (5) (b), (c), or (f) to (j).

History: 1975 c. 375; 1979 c. 102; 1995 a. 21; 2009 a. 28; 2011 a. 14. NOTE: 1995 Wisconsin Act 21, which became effective on July 15, 1995, made significant changes in the law regarding the “stacking” of insurance policy cov- erage.

A clause providing that any amount payable under the insurer’s policy would be reduced by monies paid by other insurance company’s uninsured motorist coverage was not valid; therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the entire benefits under both uninsured motorist provisions. Landvatter v. Globe Security Insurance Co. 100 Wis. 2d 21, 300 N.W.2d 875 (Ct. App. 1980).

An insurance policy provision that prohibits the stacking of uninsured motorist benefits against the same insurer is prohibited by sub. (1). Tahtinen v. MSI Insurance Co. 122 Wis. 2d 158, 361 N.W.2d 673 (1985).

Sub. (1) only prohibits the use of reducing clauses in indemnity coverages, not in underinsured motorist coverage. Kuehn v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 140 Wis. 2d 620, 412 N.W.2d 126 (Ct. App. 1987).

If a single insurance contract incorporates coverage for two vehicles, charging two separate premiums, two policies have been issued under s. 631.43. Krause v. Mass. Bay Insurance Co. 161 Wis. 2d 711, 468 N.W.2d 755 (Ct. App. 1991).

A fleet policy listing individual vehicles and assessing separate premiums for each is a separate policy for each vehicle and a single limit provision contained in the policy violates sub. (1). Carrington v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 169 Wis. 2d 211, 485 N.W.2d 267 (1992).

Carrington is extended to underinsured motorist coverage. An insured who pays separate premiums for each vehicle under a single policy can stack underinsured motorist coverage even though the policy contains a limit of liability clause. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Playman, 171 Wis. 2d 37, 489 N.W.2d 915 (1992).

Although a policy’s limit of liability language has been held invalid under s. 631.43 for the purpose of preventing stacking, it is still valid for determining each policy’s limit of liability. Schaefer v. General Cas. Co. 175 Wis. 2d 80, 498 N.W.2d 859 (Ct. App. 1993).

The lack of underinsured motorist coverage on an accident vehicle was irrelevant when the insured had the coverage on two other vehicles. Under sub. (1), a policy definition amounting to a “drive−other−car” exclusion is invalid. Rodey v. Stoner, 180 Wis. 2d 309, 509 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1993), Patraw v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. 185 Wis. 2d 757, 519 N.W.2d 643 (Ct. App. 1994).

Liability coverages insuring against the risk of loss arising out of specified, owned vehicles do not insure against the same loss and thus sub. (1) does not apply to those coverages. Weimer v. Country Mutual Insurance Co. 211 Wis. 2d 848, 565 N.W.2d 595 (Ct. App. 1997), 96−1440.

The applicability of sub. (1) cannot be ascertained by resorting to historical defini- tions of indemnity and liability insurance. An analysis must be made of whether a particular policy promises to indemnify the insured against the same loss as another policy. Taylor v. Greatway Insurance Co. 2000 WI App 64, 233 Wis. 2d 703, 608 N.W.2d 722, 99−1329.

2013−14 Wisconsin Statutes updated through 2013 Wis. Act 380 and all Supreme Court Orders entered before Jan. 1, 2015. Pub- lished and certified under s. 35.18. Changes effective after Jan. 1, 2015 are designated by NOTES. (Published 1−1−15)

Document info
Document views52
Page views52
Page last viewedThu Jan 19 00:37:45 UTC 2017