Legal Opinion

Jones v. Perkins

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 6, 1977No. 75-234PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHanley, J.

Three issues are presented on this appeal:

1. Is the insurer entitled to summary judgment because the vehicle involved was “furnished or available for the regular use” of the insured?

2. Is the insurer entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the insurer failed to give timely notice under the policy?

3. Is the insurer collaterally estopped from challenging the apportionment of negligence?

Vehicle Furnished for Regular Use

The insurance policy under consideration in this case provides that

“AETNA CASUALTY will pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the Insured shall become legally…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Leszczynski v. SurgesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Campbell v. Aetna Casualty and Surety CoCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1954
  3. Lontkowski v. IgnarskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Franey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1972
  5. Giese v. KarstedtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Keller v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984
  2. Lecus v. American Mutual Insurance Co. of BostonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Hochgurtel v. San FelippoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  4. United Services Automobile Ass'n v. CouchCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1982
  5. Westphal v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API