Stop and Check is Hit and Run for UM Coverage
In 'Zarder v. Acuity', 2010 WI 35, (2008AP919) the plaintiff
sued the defendant for uninsured motorist (UM) coverage after he
sustained injuries when he was struck by a car driven by an
unidentified motorist while riding his bicycle. After striking
the plaintiff, the three occupants of the vehicle got out of the
car, approached the plaintiff, and asked him if he was all
right. The plaintiff assured the occupants that he was all right
and the occupants returned to their car and left. Later that
night, the plaintiff's family contacted the police and reported
the accident. The police investigated the accident but could not
identify the vehicle owner. The investigation was not conducted
as a hit-and-run accident.
Subsequently, the plaintiff discovered that his arm and leg were
fractured requiring two surgeries. The plaintiff sought coverage
under his family's automobile insurance policy which included a
UM provision and a “hit-and-run” clause. The defendant filed a
motion for declaratory judgment, arguing that the hit-andrun
clause did not apply because the occupants of the unidentified
vehicle stopped to check on the plaintiff and did not flee the
scene.
The circuit court denied the motion and the defendant appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed and the defendant appealed to the
Wisconsin Supreme court.
The supreme court affirmed, holding that UM coverage exists
where an accident causing motorist remains unidentified and
leaves the scene of an accident, even if the motorist stops to
check on the insured prior to leaving the scene. The court noted
construed the phrase “hit-and-run” in favor of coverage. The
unidentified driver's intention when leaving the accident scene
was not relevant to whether there was coverage under the terms
of the insurance policy.
