Legal Opinion

Boehringer v. Continental Casualty Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 5, 1959PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, C. J.

Sec. 204.30 (3), Stats., the omnibus coverage statute, provides in part:

“The insurance hereby afforded shall not apply unless the riding, use, or operation above referred to be with the permission of the assured named in this policy.”

The only question raised on this appeal is whether, at the time of the accident, Morris was operating the truck with the permission of his employer, the named insured in the policy issued by Continental Casualty Company. The trial court held he was not.

Morris’ employment was described in the evidence as follows: When a truck had been loaded with wastepaper at the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Drewek v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Prisuda v. General Casualty Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Kitchenmaster v. Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Kowalsky v. WhipkeyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Harper v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Ryan v. Western Pacific InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Mt. Beacon Insurance Company v. WilliamsDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1969
  4. Employers Insurance of Wausau v. PelczynskiCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1989
  5. Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Employer's Mutual Liability Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1977

5 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