Legal Opinion
Buckner v. Buckner
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided March 8, 1932PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.
It is the contention of the insured-that under the evidence offered and received upon the trial it was a question of fact for the jury as to whether or not the insured breached his contract by failing to co-operate in the defense of the action as required by the terms of the policy.
It is the contention of the defendant that the verdict was properly directed by the court because (1st) the evidence established beyond any reasonable difference of opinion and therefore as a matter of law that the insured violated the conditions of the policy as to co-operation and as to giving full information to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Francis v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1927
- Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. BlueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- American Automobile Insurance v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1930
- Ward v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. ArghyrisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1949
- State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co. of Columbus v. YorkCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1939
- Kurz v. CollinsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
- Hunt v. DollarWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- Medico v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1934
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.