Legal Opinion

Zimmer v. Daun

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 1968No. 42PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHallows, C. J.

The motion of Fidelity was based upon the proposition that as a matter of law Dean and Daun were not additional insureds under the policy and were not entitled to coverage thereof because they were not engaged in unloading the cement from the truck at the time of the accident within the meaning of the policy. In denying the motion the trial court did not assign any reasons therefor. Consequently, this court will assume the trial court considered it wanted to have the facts of the case determined by trial rather than deciding* the policy extended coverage to the defendants Dean and Daun. The…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Stammer v. KitzmillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Employers Casualty Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Schuster v. Germantown Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  4. San Fernando Valley Crane Service, Inc. v. Travelers InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  5. Peterson v. Sinclair Refining Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Wright v. HasleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Ceplina v. South Milwaukee School BoardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Hardscrabble Ski Area, Inc. v. First National Bank of Rice LakeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Commercial Discount Corp. v. Milwaukee Western BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Matthew v. American Family Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972

28 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