Legal Opinion
Ben-Hur Manufacturing Co. v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of New Jersey
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided November 27, 1962PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.
The initial question is whether either Ben-Hur or Midwest, or both, had an insurable interest in the property. Public policy requires an insurable interest in property insured. A gambling or wagering agreement is void, sec. 331.055, Stats.; but that section provides a contract of insurance made in good faith for the security or indemnity of the party insured shall be lawful and valid. A fire insurance policy is an agreement to indemnify one for a loss caused by the specific peril insured against; but to constitute a loss for which indemnity can be made, one must have in the property an…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Riggs v. Commercial Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Tischendorf v. Lynn Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
- American Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Lumber Mutual Casualty InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Albert v. Home Fire & Marine Insurance Co. of CaliforniaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- Farmers' Feed Co. of New Jersey v. Scottish Union & National InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Alaska Foods, Inc. v. American Manufacturer's Mutual Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1971
- Collegiate Manufacturing Co. v. McDowell's Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1972
- Gustavson v. O'BRIENWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
- Edward E. v. ClaytonNebraska Supreme Court · 1995
- Fontana Builders, Inc. v. Assurance Company of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 2016
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.