Woller v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 2024AP500 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2026) (unpublished).
In May 2022, 14-year-old Landen Klockziem’s parents let him drive their International 656 tractor approximately 15 miles to school. In the parking lot, he ran over a fellow student’s foot. That student sued and named Scottsdale Insurance, who had issued a dwelling policy to Landen’s parents. The Court of Appeals recently decided that the policy did not provide coverage for the incident. The case demonstrates why it is always important to obtain a copy of the applicable policy before filing suit.
When determining whether a policy covers a certain incident, courts follow a three-step process. First, they look to see whether there was an initial grant of coverage. Then, they look to see whether an exclusion precludes coverage. Finally, if an exclusion applies, the court determines whether there is an exception to the exclusion that reinstates coverage.
In this case, that process played out like this:
- The parties agreed that the Scottsdale policy provided an initial grant of coverage for the student’s injuries.
- The parties agreed that the policy excluded coverage for injuries caused by a motor vehicle, which would include a tractor.
- The parties disagreed as to whether the exception to the exclusion applied. In particular, the parties and Court disagreed as to whether an exception that would reinstate coverage if the motor vehicle were used “solely to service a residence” applied.
The parties in favor of coverage argued that Landen took the tractor to school to “promote family pride and education,” and that this was a service to the residence. The court disagreed, holding that the exception applied only to vehicles that were used “only to perform services for the building the Klockziems use as their home.”
As usual, the specific wording and the specific jurisdiction matter, so it is important to know both the law and the application of that law to the language in your case. For example, the Court of Appeals discusses an Ohio case that addressed a similar (although not identical) exclusion. In that case, the Ohio court found that there was coverage. This means that you should obtain the policy early, seek a legal opinion when coverage is a close call, and not take the opposing party’s position on coverage as fact.
