Legal Opinion · Dissent

Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Cos.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided December 7, 2004No. 03-3521Published

1DissentFine, J.

¶ 17. 0dissenting). I respectfully dissent.

¶ 18. First, this action seeks to recover on an automobile policy issued to and paid for by Scott W Shira, the adult son of the plaintiffs, Bernard J. and Maria Shira. Scott Shira's parents are not insureds under his insurance policy. According to the Majority, their entitlement to the uninsured-motorist funds generated by the policy stems from their having "filed a wrongful death action under Wis. Stat. § 895.04." Majority, ¶ 2 (footnote omitted). I do not, however, understand how this can be because the accident happened in Minnesota and Wis. Stat.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. State v. LeitnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Chase v. American Cartage Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Wisconsin Bankers Ass'n v. Mutual Savings & Loan Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Nancy L. Tillett, Administratrix of the Estate of Stephen M. Tillett v. J.I. Case CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985

1 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