Legal Opinion
Weed v. Lepianka
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided March 1, 1966PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
It is basically the position of the appellants that the delivery of the policy to the agent Wood was in effect delivery to the assured and was hence sufficient to effect coverage. There is no doubt that, in some situations, the delivery to the agent could be construed to be delivery to the assured, but the basic rule as stated by Appleman is:
“Delivery of a policy is largely a question of intent, that which the conduct or agreement of the parties shows was intended by them being controlling in determining what constitutes a delivery.” 12 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, p. 226, sec. 7157.
D…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gauthier v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Guinther v. SchuchtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Madison Bank & Trust Co. v. BeatWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Tiedeman v. Village of MiddletonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Hausmann v. WittemannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
3Cited by11 opinions
- Associated Milk Producers, Inc. v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Delap v. Institute of America, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Resseguie v. American Mutual Liability InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
- Martin v. Argonaut Insurance CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1967
- Stueck v. Le DucWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.