Legal Opinion
Arnold v. Cincinnati Insurance
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Decided September 23, 2004No. 03-2483PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtVergeront, J.
¶ 1. David Arnold and Mary Beth Arnold appeal the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati Insurance Company, their homeowner's insurance carrier. The circuit court concluded that certain damages to the exterior and the interior of the Arnolds' home were excluded under either the faulty workmanship exclusion or the faulty materials exclusion or both.
¶ 2. Based on the undisputed facts, we agree with the circuit court that the damage to the exterior of the Arnolds' house for which they seek coverage is excluded under either the faulty workmanship exclusion, the faulty…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Green Spring Farms v. KerstenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
- McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1992
- Folkman v. QuammeWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
- Peace Ex Rel. Lerner v. Northwestern National InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
- Schlieper v. State Department of Natural ResourcesCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State v. WindWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Evansville Vanderburgh, Public LibraryIndiana Court of Appeals · 2007
- Wider v. Heritage Maintenance, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 2007
- Atlantic Mutual Insurance Companies v. LotzDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2005
- Leep v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co.District Court, D. Montana · 2017
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.