Legal Opinion
Ruby v. Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided December 4, 1956PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Plaintiff acquired a ring containing one large and two small diamonds and procured a policy from defendant insuring him in the sum of $2,500 against loss through theft. The policy contained the provision:
“Theft. — -The word ‘theft’ includes larceny, burglary, and robbery. Mysterious disappearance of any insured property shall be presumed to be due to theft.”
Mr. Ruby owned and operated a farm and a dairy business. On May 14, 1952, he and one of his hired men worked in his barn repairing a trailer. To conclude the repairs Mr. Ruby painted the trailer with creosote. In doing so he got creosote…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Davis v. St. Paul Mercury & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Caldwell v. St. Paul Mercury-Indemnity Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1950
- Loop v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1953
- Sigel v. American Guarantee & Liability InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Sears's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hammontree v. Central Mutual Insurance CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1965
- Lovas v. St. Paul Insurance CompaniesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1976
- Milbauer v. Transport Employes' Mutual Benefit SocietyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- RICHARD C. BARTEL v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATIONDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
- Austin v. American Casualty CompanyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1963
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.