Legal Opinion · Dissent

Water Well Solutions Service Group Inc. v. Consolidated Insurance Company

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 2016No. 2014AP002484Published

1DissentAnn Walsh Bradley, J.

¶ 41. {dissenting). I agree with the majority that the four-corners rule includes consideration of exclusions as well as exceptions to those exclusions in an insurance policy. I write separately because I disagree with the majority's conclusion to foreclose a narrow exception to the four-corners rule. Majority op., ¶ 24.

¶ 42. The majority's decision today is at loggerheads with the national trend. It puts Wisconsin *641among the 14 and ever dwindling number of jurisdictions that have clearly declined to recognize any exceptions to the four-corners rule.

¶ 43. In contrast, a majority of states…

2Cases cited56 opinions

  1. Fitzpatrick v. American Honda Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
  2. American Family Mutual Insurance v. American Girl, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Guideone Elite Insurance Co. v. Fielder Road Baptist ChurchTexas Supreme Court · 2006
  4. James Graham Brown Foundation, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.Kentucky Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Elliott v. DonahueWisconsin Supreme Court · 1992

51 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