Housner v. Baltimore-American Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.
The principal contention of the appellant is that plaintiff is entitled to judgment for not more than $196.90, which sum the undisputed evidence discloses will be adequate to restore the automobile to the same physical condition as when it was stolen, reasonable wear and tear excepted. This contention is based upon the conditions of *27the policy heretofore set out, it being the appellant’s position that the policy expressly reserves to the company the right to return the stolen automobile with compensation solely for physical damage thereto. The appellant also relies upon the limits of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. CorbettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
- Stoops v. First American Fire InsuranceTennessee Supreme Court · 1930
- Federal Insurance v. HiterCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
- Haussler v. Indemnity Co. of AmericaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1923
- Edwards v. Maryland Motor Car InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gowans v. Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1971
- Bickel v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Virginia · 1965
- Ohio Casualty Insurance v. RamseyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1982
- Bulman v. BulmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Wildin v. American Family Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.