Legal Opinion · Dissent
Tempelis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided June 17, 1992No. 90-2525Published
1DissentSteinmetz, J.
I disagree with the majority's holding in this case. The appellants' misrepresentation clearly violated the express condition of their insurance contract, therefore, voiding coverage for all claims submitted for the fire. Hence, I dissent.
Other jurisdictions have held that fraud or misrepresentation as to any portion of property under an insurance policy voids the entire policy. See, e.g., 44 Am. Jur. (2d) secs. 1371-76 (1982); 5A Appleman and Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, sec. 3595 (1970); 45 C.J.S. Insurance sec. 1021 (1946). In fact, a New Jersey case, Longobardi v. Chubb Ins. Co.,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Longobardi v. Chubb Ins. Co. of New JerseySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
- Wilburt Sales, Jr., Janice T. Sales, Cross-Appellants v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
- AMERICAN EMPLOYERS'INS. CO. v. TaylorDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
- Laabs v. Chicago Title InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.