LAW NOTES from the Law Offices of
Kay & Andersen, LLC

February, 2014
What Every Insurer Should Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
                           ABOUT COVERAGE FOR CLAIMS INVOLVING MULTIPLE
                                                         INSUREDS UNDER THE SAME POLICY ​
​​Disclaimer: The information contained on this page is not legal advice. The information provided on this website is for general informational purposes and is not necessarily updated to account for changes in the law. You should consult with an attorney for legal advice regarding your individual circumstances.
Insurers are often presented with claims where the injured party and a potential defendant are jointly listed as insureds under the applicable policy. One such instance recently arose in Barrows v. Renfrow, 2014 WI App 11 (December 10, 2013). In that case, an 11-year old boy shot himself in the head after finding a loaded .45-caliber handgun in a nightstand in his mother’s bedroom. The boy’s father subsequently filed a wrongful death suit against the boy’s mother and her homeowner’s insurer,American Family Insurance Co., alleging that the mother’s roommate had negligently stored the handgun, directly contributing to the boy’s death. The circuit court granted American Family’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the policy contained an intrainsured exclusion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted that the policy exclusion stated, “We will not cover bodily injury to any insured.” While the boy qualified as an insured under the policy, the claimant-father did not. American Family argued this exclusion applied even though the claim was brought by a non-insured because the father would have no claim but for the bodily injury sustained by the boy. The father argued that the exclusion didn’t apply because he was pursuing a wrongful death claim that is separate and distinct from a claim for the decedent’s bodily injury insofar as it compensates the wrongful death plaintiff for his own injuries and damages. The Court of Appeals noted this was an issue of first impression in Wisconsin. Id, ¶13. In looking to other jurisdictions for guidance, the Court noted that a majority elsewhere have concluded that intra-insured exclusions similar to the one in American Family’s policy exclude coverage for wrongful death arising from the death of an insured, even if the claimant is a non-insured. Id, ¶15. The Court noted that the policy definition of “bodily injury” included a “resulting loss of services, required care and death.” Id, ¶27. Because a claim for loss of services will always be a derivative claim filed by someone other than the injured person, the American Family policy contemplated exclusion of claims derived from the insured’s bodily injury because it excluded coverage for bodily injury to an insured and further stated that bodily injury includes resulting loss of services. Id, ¶28. It therefore follows logically that because the policy excluded coverage for bodily harm to an insured, the damages derived from the insured’s harm are also excluded, whether or not they are considered separate injuries. Id. The father’s claim was therefore excluded from coverage under the plain language of the policy. Id. This case highlights the fact that insurance companies wishing to preclude claims between insureds should carefully incorporate policy language that reflects such an intent. Because of the usual proximity between co-insureds, potential claims are likely to arise and therefore these types of exclusions should be carefully analyzed by insurers.

Law Offices of Kay & Andersen, LLC is recognized for securing favorable verdicts and settlements for insurance companies and their insureds and has received an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell. We are also proud to be listed in Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys and Adjusters. Feel free to contact us with any of your insurance defense needs. ​