Legal Opinion · Dissent

American Mutual Liability Insurance v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 9, 1970No. 185Published

1DissentHallows, C. J.

{dissenting). The majority opinion is either ambiguous in explaining the law or it misapplies well-established principles involving inspections of hazards by insurance companies. The law is well stated in Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co. (7th Cir. 1912), 291 Fed. 617, quoted by the majority. The rule is clear that when the inspection of boilers is undertaken by an insurance company to serve as a benefit to the assured, the duty arises to exercise reasonable care and skill in each inspection. But the court points out the other half of the rule that no such rule…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Firkus v. RombalskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Wulf v. RebbunWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  3. New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Co. v. DavisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1923

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API