Legal Opinion

Roehl v. American Family Mutual Insurance

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided September 23, 1998No. 98-1207-FTPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNettesheim, J.

Section 631.36(5), Stats., requires an automobile liability insurer to provide notice to its insured when a policy is renewed on "less favorable terms." The trial court ruled that this statute does not apply where a reduction in coverage is triggered by action of the legislature, not the insurer. The trial court also ruled that the language of the particular policies in this case did not obligate the insurer to provide such notice. As a result, the court ruled at summary judgment that the "drive other car" exclusions in two policies issued to Steven H. and Karoline J. Roehl by American Family…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. PettitCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1992
  2. Sweet v. BergeCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
  3. M & I First National Bank v. Episcopal Homes Management, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995
  4. Welch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
  5. State Ex Rel. Angela M.W. v. KruzickiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Seider v. O'CONNELLWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Taylor v. Greatway InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Sukala v. Heritage Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2000
  4. State v. RamirezCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001
  5. Hanson v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1999

11 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