Krebsbach v. Miller
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*175Currie, J„
The sole issue on this appeal is whether at the time of the accident the car was being operated with the permission of the named insured within the meaning of the omnibus coverage clause of the policy.
Integrity Mutual concedes that the record on the motion for summary judgment discloses that a disputed issue of fact exists with respect to whether the named insured, George A. Malliet, placed any restriction upon his son’s use of the Ford automobile which he was permitted to take to Milwaukee. It contends, however, that, even if the named insured had turned the automobile over to his…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Odden v. Union Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1930
- Pavelski v. RoginskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- Aetna Life Insurance v. ChandlerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
- Schimke v. Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. of HermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Harper v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Ray v. EarlDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1973
- Belas v. MelanovichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Schneberger v. GlennSupreme Court of Iowa · 1970
- Larry Gillen v. Globe Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1967
- American Motorists Insurance Company v. SamsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1979
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.