Legal Opinion

Rudolph v. Currer

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1959PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, C. J.

We will discuss the two orders separately.

Order of December 30, 1957.

It is undisputed that Employers Mutuals had in effect at the time of the plaintiffs accident a comprehensive personal liability insurance policy issued to the defendant Currer providing (Coverage A) that it would pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury. The policy contains a “no action” clause providing as follows:

“9. Action Against Company — Coverage A. No action shall lie against the company unless, as a condition precedent thereto,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Morgan v. HuntWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Bergstein v. PopkinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Lang v. BaumannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Perlick v. Country Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Hogan v. City of BeloitWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Harte v. City of Eagle RiverWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Snorek v. BoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Radtke v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Dickens v. KensmoeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Koss v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 1964

1 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