Legal Opinion

Collum v. National Fire Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 16, 1923PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.

Plaintiff made no written application for the insurance, nor did he at any time or in any manner represent to the agent that he was the absolute and unconditional owner of the truck or that it was unincumbered. The words “No exceptions,” following the recital “The automobile described is fully paid for by the insured and is not mortgaged or otherwise incumbered, except as follows,” were written in by the agent upon his own responsibility. The insured never read the policy and did not know that the same included the above warranty. It is claimed by the defendant that the insured was required…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bostwick v. Mutual Life Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Parsons, Rich & Co. v. LaneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  3. Glens Falls Insurance Co. v. MichaelIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Welch v. Fire Ass'n of PhiladelphiaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Alkan v. New Hampshire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Jeske v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Taluc v. Fall Creek Farmers Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Moe v. Allemannia Fire Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Jewell v. United Fire & Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Emmco Insurance v. Palatine InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953

3 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