Legal Opinion

Putman v. Deinhamer

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1955PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

Appellants’ first proposition is that the policy provision giving the company the right to cancel at will by mailing notice to the assured and the lapse of at least five days after mailing, but without requirement that the notice must be received by or known to the assured, is void as against public policy. The cancellation provisions in the present policy are the same as in Wisconsin Nat. Gas Co. v. Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. (1953), 263 Wis. 633, 58 N. W. (2d) 424, where we recognized their validity. Appellants say that the court was concerned then only with the form of cancellation while…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Chamberlain v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  2. Schoenung v. GalletWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  3. O'Rourke v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1902
  4. Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Employers Mutual Liability InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Frank v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Jensen v. Traders & General Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Westmoreland v. General Accident F. & L. Assurance CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
  3. Jensen v. Traders & General InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  4. Olson v. Sentry Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Olson v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970

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