Wisconsin Appeals Court Overturns Ruling Now in State Farm’s Favor

October 17, 2008

  • October 17, 2008 at 2:43 am
    Jim Mc Kenna says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How could the first court make a mistake that he had coverage? What was later proven that he did not have the coverage? Did it have to do with the fact that he was killed on duty?

  • October 17, 2008 at 3:14 am
    Question says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dude – Whatdoyaexpect…it’s the IJ !

    They don’t answer the obvious – just throw in a snippit from something they found on line to fill the space.

    Go to this article for more info – I’m sure you can find others with more detail:

    http://www.dailypress.com/topic/chi-ap-wi-officerskilled,0,2697477.story?track=rss-topicgallery

    Kreuscher was convicted of two counts of first-degree intentional homicide and sentenced to life in prison.

    Kreuscher’s automobile liability insurance did not apply to the incident because the crash was intentional, making him an uninsured motorist, court records said.

    The liability insurance company for the Town of Hobart, Etters’ employer, paid $229,725 to the family and workers compensation insurance paid $91,000, court records said.

  • October 17, 2008 at 3:28 am
    Answer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I too hate news blurbs that tell you nothing. There was an underlying UM policy in play which paid out coverage after the determination that the at-fault driver was uninsured. The issue for the court was whether the victim’s umbrella policy also carried UM. The court ruled (1) that the language of the policy was not unambiguous and that the umbrella policy did not carry UM coverage; and (2) the WI Ins. Administrative Rules exempts umbrella policies from statutory mandates to carry UM coverage, and therefore the umbrella policy was not reformed to be compelled to provide UM coverage.

  • October 19, 2008 at 12:06 pm
    Dick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thank you Question and Answer for “the rest of the story”.
    This seems to be the norm for “detailed” reporting by the Journal. We have come to expect that type of summary reporting from the main street media but would expect more from those that pose as experts.
    Hopefully they will bring us a few more details in future articles.

  • October 20, 2008 at 1:19 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    you forget one thing:

    state farm will pay if it is a passenger auto policy. remember that it was his squad car (company vehicle), this is not a normal vehicle for the family. since they already are collecting from the city for the death of the loved one.

    again, it one of those things that folks just want more money – especially lawyers. sounds like the lawyer going to have to explain, well, i going to keep the money i have and you have to pay everything back.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*