Wis. Stat. § 632.32

Section 632.32(5)(c) permits a motor vehicle handler's policy to restrict coverage for permissive users when the policy states the restriction and other valid, collectible insurance is available.

Casper v. American International South Insurance · filed 2009-12-22(5)(c)

Therefore, we find that the exception applies, and the omnibus statute does not act to make Bestway and Wearing insureds under the terms of the Ryder-ORIC policy.

Section 632.32(5)(c) permits a motor vehicle handler to limit coverage for certain permissive users when other valid and collectible insurance is available, but does not permit it to exclude the handler’s officers, agents, or employees.

Hernandez v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · filed 2014-01-28(5)(c)

And because the Other-Insurance Clause eliminates coverage for all permissive users, it eliminates coverage for Zipcar's "officers, agents [and] employees" in violation of Wis. Stat. § 632.32(5)(c).

Section 632.32(5)(c) permits a motor vehicle handler’s insurer to restrict coverage for people other than the handler, its officers, agents, or employees; a driver is an agent for this purpose only when the driving is within the scope of the agency.

Romero v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 2016-07-13(5)(c)

Read as a whole, the legislature wanted to ensure that those driving cars on behalf of the motor vehicle handler — its officers, agents, and employees — were covered more broadly. It makes sense that the kind of agency contemplated here is that the driving of the car itself must be an act within the scope of agency.

Section 632.32(5)(e) permits a motor vehicle insurance policy to exclude lessees because subsection (6) does not prohibit that exclusion.

Brown v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance · filed 2012-03-21(5)(e)

Wisconsin Stat. § 632.32(5)(e) allows for an insurance policy to "provide for exclusions not prohibited by sub. (6) or other applicable law." Section 632.32(6) does not prohibit an automobile insurance policy from excluding coverage for lessees. Thus, Tokio Marine's lessee exclusion conforms to the omnibus coverage statute and § 632.32(3) does not mandate coverage for Kuester.

Section 632.32(6)(b) prohibits excluding a named insured from coverage, but an umbrella policy exempt from the UM coverage requirement does not violate that prohibition by providing no UM coverage.

Wadzinski v. Auto-Owners Insurance · filed 2012-07-05(6)(b)

As discussed above, the Insurance Commissioner exempted umbrella policies from the requirement of affording UM coverage, so an umbrella policy that does not afford UM coverage will not be in violation of § 632.32(6)(b) because no such coverage need be provided under an umbrella policy.

Section 632.32(6)(b)4. prohibits a motor vehicle policy from excluding coverage for reckless or unlawful use of the vehicle.

Fetherston v. Parks · filed 2013-12-12(6)(b)4.

This provision prohibits American Family from excluding coverage for Parks' conduct that the parties agree was reckless or for unlawful purposes as he sped away from the police, wove in and out of traffic, passed a truck on the right, lost control and hit gravel while moving in front of the truck.