Legal Opinion

Bellman v. Home Insurance Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 10, 1922PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.

It is fundamental that an insured who' deliberately sets fire to the insured property cannot recover on a policy of fire insurance. To permit a recovery under such circumstances would reward crime and shock the most fundamental notions of justice. To permit a recovery by either the partnership, or. the unoffending partner upon a policy of insurance issued to a partnership insuring partnership property where one of the partners has wilfully fired the insured property, is likewise repugnant to an intuitive sense of justice. Much discussion and ingenious argument is indulged by plaintiffs’…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Keith v. Royal Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1903

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Hedtcke v. Sentry InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Hoyt v. New Hampshire Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1942
  3. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. MolloyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  4. Republic Insurance Co. v. JerniganSupreme Court of Colorado · 1988
  5. Kosior v. Continental Insurance Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938

22 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