Howard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Liability Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.
State Farm raises three issues upon appeal. First, State Farm contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the matter of mitigated damages was neither properly raised nor sufficiently proved. Secondly, State Farm contends that its offers of judgment for the policy limits prior to the trial on Toomey’s claim preclude, as a matter of law, a finding of bad faith on its part. Finally, State Farm argues that a new trial should be granted because of errors in the court’s instructions.
State Farm asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to limit liability in this case to the policy…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Vroman v. KempkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Hein v. TorgesonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Schiller v. Keuffel & Esser Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Williams v. HofmannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
- Baierl v. HinshawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- C. A. May Marine Supply Company v. Brunswick CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Emmanuil Moutsopoulos v. American Mutual Insurance Company of Boston, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1979
- Howard v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. L. INS. CO.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Emmanuil Moutsopoulos v. American Mutual Insurance Company of Boston, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1979