Lovell M. Nash v. Progressive Universal Insurance Company

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT I
November 16, 2021
To:
Hon. Paul R. Van Grunsven
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
John Barrett
Clerk of Circuit Court
Milwaukee County
Electronic Notice
Colin Casper
Electronic Notice
Russ J. Delury
Electronic Notice
Eric Matthew Knobloch
Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2020AP184 Lovell M. Nash v. Progressive Universal Insurance Company
(L.C. # 2018CV9548)
Before Brash, C.J., Donald, P.J., and Dugan, J.
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Lovell M. Nash appeals the circuit court’s judgment and order granting summary judgment
in favor of Progressive Universal Insurance Company. He argues that the circuit court improperly
granted summary judgment dismissing his case when it ruled that he was not covered by the
uninsured motorist provision of his Progressive policy. We affirm.
According to the complaint, Nash was driving his car when his passenger, Hazel Haynes,
grabbed the steering wheel without his permission, causing the car to leave the road and crash.
Nash was hospitalized and required surgery on his leg, which was broken in the accident. Nash
brought this action against Progressive, arguing that he should be covered under the uninsured

No. 2020AP184
2
motorist provision of his Progressive car insurance policy. He contended that Haynes, who is
uninsured, was operating his car without his permission when she grabbed the steering wheel while
the car was in motion, and she is therefore an uninsured driver under his policy. Progressive moved
for summary judgment, arguing that Nash was not entitled to coverage under the uninsured
motorist provision in the policy based on the factual circumstances alleged by Nash. The circuit
court granted summary judgment in favor of Progressive.
“Summary judgment will be granted where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Driver v. Driver, 119 Wis. 2d
65, 69, 349 N.W.2d 97 (Ct. App. 1984); WIS. STAT. § 802.08(2) (2019-20).1 “We review a circuit
court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as the circuit
court.” Fromm v. Village of Lake Delton, 2014 WI App 47, ¶11, 354 Wis. 2d 30, 847 N.W.2d
845 (italics added).
The first step of the well-established summary methodology “requires the court to examine
the pleadings to determine whether a claim for relief has been stated.” Green Spring Farms v.
Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987). “In testing the sufficiency of a complaint,
we take all facts pleaded by plaintiffs and all inferences which can reasonably be derived from
those facts as true.” Id. at 317. “The complaint should be dismissed as legally insufficient only if
it is quite clear that under no circumstances can plaintiffs recover.” Id.
The Progressive policy provides the following with regard to uninsured motorist coverage:
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.

No. 2020AP184
3
If you pay the premium for this coverage, we will pay for damages
that an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner
or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily
injury:
1. Sustained by an Insured person;
2. Caused by an accident; and
3. Arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an
uninsured motor vehicle.
The policy defines an “uninsured motor vehicle” as “a land motor vehicle … of any type … to
which no bodily injury liability bond or policy applies at the time of the accident.…” The policy
further states: “An ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ does not include any vehicle … that is a covered
auto.” The policy defines a covered auto as “any auto … shown on the declarations page….”
The Progressive policy unambiguously defines a covered auto under the policy as any auto
listed on the declarations page. Nash’s car is listed on the policy’s declarations page. Therefore,
Nash’s car is a covered auto under the policy.
The Progressive policy unambiguously states that a covered auto is not an uninsured motor
vehicle under the policy. Nash’s car is a covered auto under the policy, so his car is not an
uninsured motor vehicle as defined by the policy. The policy provides uninsured motorist
coverage for damages arising out of use of an uninsured motor vehicle. Because Nash’s car is not
an uninsured motor vehicle, the uninsured motorist coverage does not apply.
Nash argues that Haynes was a non-permissive uninsured driver of his car when she
grabbed the steering wheel, causing the crash. Even if Haynes were considered to be a non-
permissive uninsured driver of Nash’s car, that does not change the status of Nash’s car as a
covered auto under the policy. The status of Nash’s car as a covered auto means that the uninsured
motorist provisions of the policy do not apply.

No. 2020AP184
4
Upon the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment and order of the circuit court are summarily affirmed.
See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Court of Appeals