The applicants sought a determination of whether a lessee of a leased vehicle could access the lessor’s insurance coverage beyond the statutory $1 million cap under s. 267.12 of the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.
They argued that a legislative gap existed between the 2006 amendments to the Insurance Act limiting lessor liability and the later approval of the OEF 110 endorsement restricting coverage for lessees, allowing lessees to access the lessor’s insurance as unnamed insureds during the interim.
The court rejected this argument, holding that s. 267.12 must be interpreted in light of the legislative purpose of protecting lessors and their insurers by capping exposure.
Interpreting the statute to permit lessees to access excess or umbrella policies would undermine the legislative scheme.
The court further held that the excess and umbrella policies at issue did not provide coverage to the lessee based on their wording and the fact that the lessor was not a named insured under the relevant policies.
The application was dismissed.
