Legal Opinion

Millard v. North River Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1930PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFritz, J.

The policy issued by the defendants described the insured property as a two-story, shingle-roof frame dwelling “occupied and to be occupied for dwelling purposes only.” A clause in the policy provided, “unless otherwise provided by agreement in writing added hereto, this company shall not be liable for any loss or damage while the hazard is increased by any means within the control or knowledge of the insured.” A writing was attached granting permission “to make alterations, improvements, and repairs to any building herein described and to complete the same if under construction.”-

■’Defendants…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Trautmann v. Charles Schefft & Sons Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Rosenthal v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Fire Ass'n v. PattonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Kircher v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Stebbins v. Westchester Fire InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Harter v. DickmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Auster v. ZaspelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Repinski v. Clintonville Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Steubing v. ArnoldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Witkowski v. City of MenashaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942

4 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