Legal Opinion
Heezen v. Hartland Cicero Mutual Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided May 7, 1974No. 292PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHanley, J.
The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
The multiperil policy of insurance which was to be issued in the instant action incorporated therein the provisions of the statutory standard fire policy as provided for by sec. 203.01, Stats. The provision material for this appeal states:
“No suit or action on this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with, and unless commenced within twelve months next…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Union Fire Insurance v. StoneCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Riteway Builders, Inc. v. First National Insurance Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Townsend v. Milwaukee InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Griem v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Zepczyk v. NelsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Salloum Foods & Liquor, Inc. v. Parliament InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1979
- Greater Providence Trust Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1976
- Martin v. Liberty Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- Borgen v. Economy Preferred InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993
- Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. HughesIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.