Venerable v. Adams
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
1Opinion of the CourtBrennan, J.
¶ 1. InsureMax Insurance Company appeals from an order reserving its right to appeal from the trial court's denial of its motion seeking summary judgment on coverage. InsureMax contends the trial court should have ruled that its policy did not provide coverage because the "deemed permission" rule set forth in Arps v. Seelow, 163 Wis. 2d 645, 472 N.W.2d 542 (Ct. App. 1991), does not apply to the facts of this case, and because the car, as it was being used when the accident occurred here, does not qualify as an insured car under InsureMax's insurance policy. Because InsureMax's policy did not…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Green Spring Farms v. KerstenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1987
- Gross v. HoffmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Folkman v. QuammeWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
- Peace Ex Rel. Lerner v. Northwestern National InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
- Home Insurance Co. v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Vicki L. Blasing v. Zurich American Ins. Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2014
- Vicki L. Blasing v. Zurich American Ins. Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2014