COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 15, 2009 David
R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
APPEAL
from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for
Before Vergeront, Lundsten and Bridge, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Mark and Nancy Phillips appeal a judgment and an order of dismissal dismissing their insurance coverage claim against Progressive Northern Insurance Company. We affirm for the reasons discussed below.
BACKGROUND
¶2 According to the summary judgment materials, the Phillipses were riding their motorcycles behind an open-topped semi-truck loaded with sand. A big chunk of sandy material flew off the semi-truck and struck and blinded Nancy, who lost control of her motorcycle and sustained serious injuries. The semi-truck did not stop and neither it nor its driver was ever identified.
¶3 The Phillipses sought uninsured motorist coverage from their insurer for a hit-and-run accident. The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to deny coverage on the grounds that there had been no physical contact with the semi-truck. The Phillipses filed a counterclaim, but the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4 This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo,
applying the same methodology and legal standard employed by the circuit
court. Brownelli v. McCaughtry,
182
DISCUSSION
¶5
¶6 Several Wisconsin cases have considered whether an object
flying off of a vehicle could be considered part of that vehicle for purposes
of hit-and-run coverage. For instance, in
Dehnel
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 231
¶7 We conclude, as did the circuit court, that Dehnel controls the outcome here. A chunk of sand, even when part of a truck’s cargo, is akin to a chunk of ice, not a leaf spring. It is not a vehicle component. Moreover, the general policy concern about potentially fraudulent claims based on items from phantom vehicles applies here. That is, even if a chunk of sand were to be recovered from the scene, there would be nothing inherent about it to link it to a vehicle.
¶8 Because the sand was not an integral part of the semi-truck, the accident here cannot be categorized as a hit-and-run under Wisconsin law, and the circuit court properly determined that the Phillipses were not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage.
By the Court.—Judgment and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.