of a particular phrase in a statute that has stood for over 20 years. "This court has long been committed to the principle that a construction given to a statute by the court becomes a part thereof, unless the legislature subsequently amends the statute to effect a change." City of Sun Prairie v. PSC, 37 Wis. 2d 96, 100, 154 N.W.2d 360 (1967). "Legislative inaction following judicial construction of a statute, while not conclusive, evinces legislative approval of the interpretation." State v. Eichman, 155 Wis. 2d 552, 566, 455 N.W.2d 143 (1990). Thus, generally, "[Legislative silence with regard to new court-made decisions indicates legislative acquiescence in those decisions." State v. Olson, 175 Wis. 2d 628, 641, 498 N.W.2d 661 (1993). See also Bauman, 7 Wis. 2d at 469-70 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 53. Romanshek contends that this doctrine
holding that it was not proper to depart from stare decisis where court had previously ruled that policy exclusion did not violate omnibus insurance coverage statute and legislature had not amended statute in the 11 years since the prior decision holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage holding that the court assumes the legislature acquiesced in our interpretation of the language because the legislature had not amended the language holding that insurance company operating under a reservation of rights had the right and the duty to control the defense until such time as it was determined that it had no liability insurance coverage holding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review a district courts discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines but would have jurisdiction if the district court based its decision on the belief that it did not have the authority to depart