Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 631.43 (2026)
Other insurance provisions
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
631.43(1)(1) General. When 2 or more policies promise to indemnify an insured against the same loss, no “other insurance” provisions of the policy may reduce the aggregate protection of the insured below the lesser of the actual insured loss suffered by the insured or the total indemnification promised by the policies if there were no “other insurance” provisions. The policies may by their terms define the extent to which each is primary and each excess, but if the policies contain inconsistent terms on that point, the insurers shall be jointly and severally liable to the insured on any coverage where the terms are inconsistent, each to the full amount of coverage it provided. Settlement among the insurers shall not alter any rights of the insured.
631.43(2)(2) Fraud as a defense. Subsection (1) does not affect the right of an insurer to defend against a claim under the policy on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation.
631.43(3)(3) Exception. Subsection (1) does not affect the rights of insurers to limit, restrict, reduce, or exclude coverage under s. 632.32 (5) (b), (c), or (f) to (j).
631.43 NoteNOTE: 1995 Wis. Act 21 made significant changes in the law, effective July 15, 1995, regarding the “stacking” of insurance policy coverage.
631.43 AnnotationA clause providing that any amount payable under the insurer’s policy would be reduced by monies paid by other insurance company’s uninsured motorist coverage was not valid; therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the entire benefits under both uninsured motorist provisions. Landvatter v. Globe Security Insurance Co., 100 Wis. 2d 21, 300 N.W.2d 875 (Ct. App. 1980).
631.43 AnnotationAn insurance policy provision that prohibits the stacking of uninsured motorist benefits against the same insurer is prohibited by sub. (1). Tahtinen v. MSI Insurance Co., 122 Wis. 2d 158, 361 N.W.2d 673 (1985).
631.43 AnnotationSub. (1) only prohibits the use of reducing clauses in indemnity coverages, not in underinsured motorist coverage. Kuehn v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 140 Wis. 2d 620, 412 N.W.2d 126 (Ct. App. 1987).
631.43 AnnotationIf a single insurance contract incorporates coverage for two vehicles, charging two separate premiums, two policies have been issued under this section. Krause v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., 161 Wis. 2d 711, 468 N.W.2d 755 (Ct. App. 1991).
631.43 AnnotationA fleet policy listing individual vehicles and assessing separate premiums for each is a separate policy for each vehicle, and a single limit provision contained in the policy violates sub. (1). Carrington v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 169 Wis. 2d 211, 485 N.W.2d 267 (1992).
631.43 AnnotationCarrington, 169 Wis. 2d 211 (1992), is extended to underinsured motorist coverage. An insured who pays separate premiums for each vehicle under a single policy can stack underinsured motorist coverage even though the policy contains a limit of liability clause. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Playman, 171 Wis. 2d 37, 489 N.W.2d 915 (1992).
631.43 AnnotationAlthough a policy’s limit of liability language has been held invalid under this section for the purpose of preventing stacking, it is still valid for determining each policy’s limit of liability. Schaefer v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin, 175 Wis. 2d 80, 498 N.W.2d 855 (Ct. App. 1993).
631.43 AnnotationThe lack of underinsured motorist coverage on an accident vehicle was irrelevant when the insured had the coverage on two other vehicles. Under sub. (1), a policy definition amounting to a “drive-other-car” exclusion is invalid. Rodey v. Stoner, 180 Wis. 2d 309, 509 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1993). See also Patraw v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 185 Wis. 2d 757, 519 N.W.2d 643 (Ct. App. 1994).
631.43 AnnotationLiability coverages insuring against the risk of loss arising out of specified, owned vehicles do not insure against the same loss, and thus sub. (1) does not apply to those coverages. Weimer v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 211 Wis. 2d 848, 565 N.W.2d 595 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1440.
631.43 AnnotationThe applicability of sub. (1) cannot be ascertained by resorting to historical definitions of indemnity and liability insurance. An analysis must be made of whether a particular policy promises to indemnify the insured against the same loss as another policy. Taylor v. Greatway Insurance Co., 2000 WI App 64, 233 Wis. 2d 703, 608 N.W.2d 722, 99-1329.
631.43 AnnotationSub. (1) did not invalidate a provision excluding coverage for a vehicle not owned by the driver but made regularly available to the driver when the owner’s policy insured against losses arising from the use of the vehicle. The policies did not insure against the “same loss” within the meaning of sub. (1). Martin v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2002 WI 40, 252 Wis. 2d 103, 643 N.W.2d 452, 00-2344.
631.43 AnnotationSection 632.05 (2), the valued policy law, does not provide that an insured is entitled to the limits of all policies insuring a dwelling. Instead, sub. (1), the pro rata statute, specifically governs situations when two or more policies indemnify against the same loss. Absent the consent of the insurers, insureds are entitled to the full amount of their loss but not to the full amount of both policies if the combined limits exceed the actual loss. Wegner v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2007 WI App 18, 298 Wis. 2d 420, 728 N.W.2d 30, 05-3193.
631.43 AnnotationSub. (1) refers specifically to “other insurance” provisions. The accepted meaning of “other insurance” provisions does not include application to successive insurance policies. “Other insurance” refers only to two or more policies insuring the same risk, and the same interest, for the benefit of the same person, during the same period. The issue here was not which of two or more policies pays first, because they were not concurrent policies between competing insurers that applied to the same time period, but successive policies from the same insurer. Plastics Engineering Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 WI 13, 315 Wis. 2d 556, 759 N.W.2d 613, 08-0333.
631.43 AnnotationStacking uninsured motorist coverage. Hannula. WBB Oct. 1985.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2021 · leading case: Plastics Eng'g Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 2009 WI 13 (Wis. 2009).
Plastics Eng'g Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 2009 WI 13 (Wis. 2009). “¶ 4 We answer the three certified questions by concluding that under the language in this policy and the facts of this case, each claimant's repeated exposure is one occurrence; Wis. Stat. § 631.43 (1) (1975-current) [4] does not apply to successive *616 insurance policies; and…”
Wood v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 436 N.W.2d 594 (Wis. 1989). “Both the "drive other car" reducing clause and the "other automobile insurance in the company" reducing *648 clause serve the same purpose: both clauses are an attempt to avoid the statutory prohibition of reducing clauses.”
Weimer v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 575 N.W.2d 466 (Wis. 1998). “" It is the court of appeals' affirmation of this issue from which Weimer appeals.”
Folkman v. Quamme, 2003 WI 116 (Wis. 2003). “"Other Insurance" Provisions and Wis. Stat. § 631.43 (1) ¶ 70. The Folkmans also argue that the limit of liability clause in Debra's policy is void because it violates Wis.”
Tahtinen v. MSI Ins., 361 N.W.2d 673 (Wis. 1985). “In addition, the statutory sentence as interpreted by the majority ignores a following subsection 631.43 (3), Stats., which states: “Subsection (1) does not affect the rights of insurers to exclude coverages under s.”
Matthiesen v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 532 N.W.2d 729 (Wis. 1995). “Application of the unambiguous reducing clauses in this case negates *207 any need to invoke the stacking statute, § 631.43, Stats. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.”
Weimer v. Country Mut. Ins., 565 N.W.2d 595 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “We conclude that the results, however counter-intuitive they might be, are required by the interaction of § 631.43, STATS., the language of the insurance policies, and the holdings of this court and the supreme court.”
Nicholson v. Home Ins. Companies, Inc., 405 N.W.2d 327 (Wis. 1987). “1980), the court of appeals concluded that the enactment of sec. 631.43, Stats. 1979, provided the legislative mandate prohibiting reducing clauses which was missing at the time of the Leatherman, Scherr and Nelson cases.”
Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 2006 WI 89 (Wis. 2006). “Englund's letter also references Wis. Stat. § 631.43 (1) (1991-92), which at that time read in part: When 2 or more policies promise to indemnify an insured against the same loss, no "other insurance" provisions of the policy may reduce the aggregate protection of the insured…”
Westra v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 2013 WI App 93 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “The disputed issue was whether the anti-stacking provision was permissible under Wis. Stat. §§ 631.43 (1) and 632.32(6)(d).”
Kaun v. Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins., 436 N.W.2d 321 (Wis. 1989). “*681 We conclude that enactment of sec. 631.43, Stats., provides the legislative mandate which was missing at the time the Leatherman, Scherr, and Nelson cases considered the public policy considerations governing reducing clauses.”
Taylor v. Greatway Ins., 2001 WI 93 (Wis. 2001). “The court of appeals held that the policy definition of underinsured motor vehicle, when combined with the drive-other-car exclusion, violated Wis. Stat. § 631.43 (1). [10] *150 ¶ 23. Rodey does not govern the result in the instant case.”
— Wis. Stat. § 631.43(1) — 58 cases
Wood v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 436 N.W.2d 594 (Wis. 1989). “Both the "drive other car" reducing clause and the "other automobile insurance in the company" reducing *648 clause serve the same purpose: both clauses are an attempt to avoid the statutory prohibition of reducing clauses.”
Matthiesen v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 532 N.W.2d 729 (Wis. 1995). “Application of the unambiguous reducing clauses in this case negates *207 any need to invoke the stacking statute, § 631.43, Stats. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.”
Tahtinen v. MSI Ins., 361 N.W.2d 673 (Wis. 1985). “In addition, the statutory sentence as interpreted by the majority ignores a following subsection 631.43 (3), Stats., which states: “Subsection (1) does not affect the rights of insurers to exclude coverages under s.”
Weimer v. Country Mut. Ins., 565 N.W.2d 595 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “We conclude that the results, however counter-intuitive they might be, are required by the interaction of § 631.43, STATS., the language of the insurance policies, and the holdings of this court and the supreme court.”
Nicholson v. Home Ins. Companies, Inc., 405 N.W.2d 327 (Wis. 1987). “1980), the court of appeals concluded that the enactment of sec. 631.43, Stats. 1979, provided the legislative mandate prohibiting reducing clauses which was missing at the time of the Leatherman, Scherr and Nelson cases.”
— Wis. Stat. § 631.43(3) — 6 cases
Tahtinen v. MSI Ins., 361 N.W.2d 673 (Wis. 1985). “In addition, the statutory sentence as interpreted by the majority ignores a following subsection 631.43 (3), Stats., which states: “Subsection (1) does not affect the rights of insurers to exclude coverages under s.”
Fairbanks v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 512 N.W.2d 230 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
Remiszewski v. Am. Fam. Ins., 2004 WI App 175 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
Belding v. DeMoulin, 2013 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013).
Gragg v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 2001 WI App 272 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wis. Stat. § 631.43(l) — 1 case
Westra v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 2013 WI App 93 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “The disputed issue was whether the anti-stacking provision was permissible under Wis. Stat. §§ 631.43 (1) and 632.32(6)(d).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.