Legal Opinion

Cotter v. Central Mutual Hail & Cyclone Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

The defendant claims that the company is not liable for the loss because the policy was by its terms suspended by the plaintiff’s failure to pay the 1927 assessment and no loss was payable during her default. A priori, this contention should be sustained. The plaintiff makes two claims in avoidance of it: (1) That the defendant is a town mutual insurance company; and if not, that it is estopped from claiming to the contrary by reason of its quotation of sec. 202.1Í (3), applicable to such companies, in its notices of assessments; and that suspension of the plaintiff did not result from…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Webster v. Phœnix InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Milwaukee Trust Co. v. Farmers' Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Bitters v. Central Mutual Hail & Cyclone InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Johnson v. Hartland Farmers' Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API