|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED March 4, 1997 |
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(1), Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-1955
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
MARK DONKERSGOED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ECONOMY PREFERRED
INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Respondent,
LYNDON WEBERG AND
THRESHERMEN'S
MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Pierce County:
ROBERT W. WING, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J.,
LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Mark Donkersgoed appeals
a summary judgment that dismissed his underinsured motorist lawsuit against his
own liability insurer, Economy Preferred Insurance Company. The Economy policy supplied underinsured
motorist coverage for an accident with another motor vehicle with liability
coverage less than the liability coverage limits provided by the Economy policy
itself. Donkersgoed had an accident
with a vehicle having the same liability limits as the Economy policy, not
lower liability limits.
On appeal, Donkersgoed
argues that his underinsured motorist coverage is invalid for deviating from
the rational expectations of a reasonable insured. He also argues that the trial court should have stacked the
liability limits of the two policies he had from Economy Preferred insuring his
two motor vehicles. The trial court
correctly granted summary judgment if Economy showed no dispute of material
fact and a right to judgment as a matter of law. Powalka v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 53 Wis.2d
513, 518, 192 N.W.2d 852, 854 (1972).
Donkersgoed acknowledges that both his arguments contradict prior
appellate court decisions on the same issues.
He asks us not to apply those decisions or, alternatively, to certify
the issues to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
We reject Donkersgoed's arguments and therefore affirm the summary
judgment.
First, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court has held that an identical underinsured coverage provision
furnished no coverage. Smith v.
Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 155 Wis.2d 808, 811, 456 N.W.2d 597, 599
(1990). This decision binds this court,
State v. Dowe, 197 Wis.2d 848, 854, 541 N.W.2d 218, 220-21 (Ct.
App. 1995), and modification of the Smith decision must come from
the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Second, we
have already held that underinsured claimants may not stack the liability
limits of two policies for two cars. Krech
v. Hanson, 174 Wis.2d 170, 172-73, 473 N.W.2d 600, 601-02 (Ct. App.
1991). As a published court of appeals
decision, Krech has statewide precedential effect, see §
752.41(2), Stats., an is
generally binding on future court of appeals cases. See State v. Solles, 169 Wis.2d 566, 570,
485 N.W.2d 457, 459 (Ct. App. 1992). We
see no reason to depart from it here.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.