A couple’s legal battle over insurance coverage has been dismissed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court’s decision. On February 4, 2026, Alexander and Acacia Gohlke filed an appeal against West Bend Insurance Company in the Fond du Lac County Circuit Court, seeking underinsured motorist coverage following an accident involving Alexander.
The case revolves around an incident where Alexander Gohlke was struck by a vehicle while operating a concrete-cutting saw on a public highway. The plaintiffs argued that the insurance policy issued by West Bend to Alexander’s employer should provide coverage for this accident. However, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of West Bend, stating that Alexander was not “occupying” a covered auto at the time of the accident as defined by the policy. The policy covers individuals “occupying” a covered auto, which is defined as being “in, upon, getting in, on, out, or off” the vehicle.
The Gohlkes contended that Alexander was legally occupying either the truck or trailer because he was physically connected to them via a hose supplying water from a tank on the truck to his saw. They further argued that they had a reasonable expectation of coverage and that it was intended to cover users of these vehicles in their ordinary use. However, the court found no ambiguity in the policy language and determined that Alexander did not meet the criteria for “occupying” under any reasonable interpretation.
In their appeal, the Gohlkes referenced several cases including Moherek v. Tucker and Sentry Insurance Co. v. Providence Washington Insurance Co., arguing similarities with their situation. However, Judge Gundrum noted significant differences between those cases and this one. Unlike previous cases where individuals were deemed to be “upon” or “alighting from” vehicles due to close physical proximity or intent to enter them imminently, Alexander was 15 feet away from his trailer and 20 feet from his truck when injured.
Ultimately, the court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Alexander was occupying a covered vehicle at the time of his injury. The judgment affirmed West Bend’s position that their policy did not extend coverage under these circumstances.
Representing themselves pro se in this matter were plaintiffs-appellants Alexander and Acacia Gohlke while West Bend Insurance Company was represented by its legal team. The case was presided over by Judge Douglas R. Edelstein with Judges Gundrum, Grogan, and Lazar also involved in rendering this appellate decision (Case ID: 2025AP498).
Source: 2025AP498_Gohlke_v_West_Bend_Insurance_Company_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf