In an unanimous decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, an asbestos exclusion included in a business owner’s policy was found to preclude coverage. See Phillips v. Parmelee, 2013 WI 105. A review of the Phillips decision reveals that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is willing to uphold insurance policy exclusions if they are written in a clear and unambiguous manner. This decision stresses why all insurance carriers should strive to draft clear and easy to understand insurance policy exclusions.

A recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision runs counter to it’s usual pro-carrier rulings and held that an insured may stack uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) coverage from different polices issued from 2009 through 2011. The decision involved an issue of law that has been in constant flux the last few years. This article will discuss the history of stacking in Wisconsin as well as summarize the Court’s recent decision.

Most automobile insurance policies include a provision providing that coverage will only apply if “bodily injury” or “property damage” arises out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an automobile. This requirement has long been the source of the application of unusual facts and arguments. Use of a vehicle seems fairly simplistic, but the various factual scenarios that arise have created some interesting case law which continues to develop in Wisconsin. This article will outline the current status of the “use” provision in light of a recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision.