COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED April 18, 1996 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-1009
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
MARY ALICE FARNEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN P. FARNEN,
Defendant-Appellant,
WESTERN WISCONSIN
MUTUAL INS. CO.,
Intervenor-Defendant-Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for La Crosse County:
JOHN J. PERLICH, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Dykman and Vergeront, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. John Farnen appeals from an order declaring that his
personal liability insurer, Western Wisconsin Mutual Insurance Company, need
not defend him or provide coverage in this personal injury action. The plaintiff in the action is Farnen's
ex-wife and co-insured, Mary Farnen.
The issue is whether, on public policy grounds, the family exclusion in
the Farnens' policy should be declared unenforceable. That clause provides that the policy will not afford personal
liability coverage for "bodily injury to you," which in this case
meant both insureds, John and Mary. The
supreme court has held such exclusions enforceable, and we therefore affirm.
The rationale for family
exclusion clauses is to protect insurers from situations where an insured might
not cooperate with or assist the insurer.
Shannon v. Shannon, 150 Wis.2d 434, 455-56, 442 N.W.2d 25,
35 (1989). John contends that the
exclusion should therefore be unenforceable where, as here, the insured is
highly motivated to cooperate and assist.
However, the supreme court has recently held in a case where the
possibility of collusion was deemed quite low, if not nil, that "we hold
that such clauses are not contrary to public policy, even though there may be
no collusion in this particular case."
Whirlpool Corp. v. Ziebert, 197 Wis.2d 144, 151-52, 539
N.W.2d 883, 886 (1995). We are bound by
supreme court precedent. Livesey
v. Copps Corp., 90 Wis.2d 577, 581, 280 N.W.2d 339, 341 (Ct. App.
1979). As a matter of public policy,
Western Wisconsin's family exclusion clause is therefore enforceable.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.