Legal Opinion · Concurrence
State v. Hydrite Chemical Co.
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
Decided March 17, 2005No. 00-3344, 01-0580Published
1ConcurrenceVergeront, J.
¶ 41. (concurring). I write separately to raise a question not answered by American *679Girl-, is there a need in Wisconsin for the known loss doctrine that is not adequately addressed by the combination of insurance contract terms, questions on the application for insurance, and the defenses available to insurers under Wis. Stat. § 631.11. See footnote 20.
¶ 42. Insurers may exclude from coverage losses about which insureds knew when they applied for insurance. See, e.g., National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Stroh Cos., Inc., 265 F.3d 97, 104 (2d Cir. 2001) (contaminated products insurance policy…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. The Stroh Companies, Inc. And the Stroh Brewery CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
- City of Johnstown, New York v. Bankers Standard Insurance Company, Pacific Employers Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
- Alcoa v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2000
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. American Centennial Insurance Co.Lucas County Court of Common Pleas · 1995
- Generali-U.S. Branch v. Bank of MontrealCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995