Legal Opinion
Isaacson v. Wisconsin Casualty Ass'n
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided May 12, 1925PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtVinje, C. J.
The defendant claims that a proper notice was not given to it and therefore it is not liable. The policy required that notice be given “To the company at Green Bay, Wisconsin, or to any authorized agent of the company *27at Green Bay, Wisconsin.” Sec. 208.05, sub. (3), par. (5) of the standard provision form of policy provides:
“(5) A standard provision relative to sufficiency of notice of claim which shall be in one of the following forms and in which the insurer shall insert in the blank space such office and its location as it may desire to designate for such purpose of notice:
“(A) : — (5)…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Reeves v. Midland Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
- Williams v. Travelers Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
3Cited by12 opinions
- Purcell v. Washington Fidelity National InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1934
- Schoeman v. Loyal Protective Life Insurance Co. of MassachusettsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1948
- Jones v. Preferred Accident Insurance Co. of New YorkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Van Dusen v. Interstate Business Men's Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
- Lewis v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.