Barly v. Public Fire Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFritz, J.
The plaintiffs, Joseph A. Barly and Ceil Barly, were husband and wife, and purchased, as second hand, the automobile covered by the policy in suit. Joseph A. Barly was engaged in the practice of law, and was also licensed to solicit some lines of insurance, which he placed through an agency conducted by W. H. Shapaker, who wrote policies for the defendant. Viewed most favorably in support of the trial court’s findings, the evidence may be considered to establish the following facts: On June 21, 1928, Joseph A. Barly told Shapaker that he wanted the policy for himself and his wife; that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Snell v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Bostwick v. Mutual Life Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Palmer v. Hartford Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1887
- Journal Co. v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
- Komula v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Jeske v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- Taluc v. Fall Creek Farmers Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Bradach v. New York Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Jewell v. United Fire & Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Schmidt v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.