Legal Opinion

Reetz v. Werch

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1959PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFaiRChild, J.

The issue results from the presence of the “excess” clauses in the two policies. The pertinent excess clause in the Continental policy is the proviso in the “other insurance” paragraph quoted in the statement of facts. In the Virginia policy, it is the “other insurance” paragraph of the “Long Haul Truckmen” indorsement. If neither policy contained its excess clause, it is undisputed that both policies would cover the liability which the plaintiff seeks to establish.

It is not perfectly clear whether Berlin Rental Service and Werch Trucking Company were each mere trade names of E. A. Werch, but…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ermis v. Federal Windows Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1959

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Federal Insurance v. Atlantic National InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
  2. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1966
  3. Faltersack v. Vanden BoogaardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Pitrowski v. TaylorWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Continental Casualty Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1960

11 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