Legal Opinion
Neumann v. Wisconsin Natural Gas Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided April 27, 1965PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilkie, J.
Two issues are presented on this appeal:
First, can appellant be named as a party defendant under the direct-action statutes ?
Second, assuming respondent is liable in any degree for damages resulting from the explosion, does the insurance policy cover his liability ?
Direct Action Against Travelers.
Appellant Travelers Indemnity Company can be named properly as a party in this action only if the “Hy-Hoe” excavation unit is a motor vehicle pursuant to the direct-action statutes, sec. 260.11 (1) and sec. 204.30 (4). The policy contains the usual no-action clause. Paragraph 3 (b) declares that…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Kendrick v. MasonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1958
- Smedley Co. v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of WisconsinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- Berger Bros. Electric Motors, Inc. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1944
- Smedley v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- COMMERCIAL CONTRACTORS CORPORATION v. American Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- American Motorists Insurance v. Trane Co.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1982
- McPhee v. American Motorists InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Maples v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1978
- Keystone Automated Equipment Co. v. Reliance InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Schmidt v. LuchterhandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.