Legal Opinion

McDonnell v. Hestnes

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1970No. 220PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

The insurance company relied upon the clause in its policy which reads:

“8. Assistance and Cooperation of the Insured: The insured shall cooperate with the Company, and upon the Company’s request shall attend hearings and trials and shall assist in effecting settlements, securing and giving evidence, obtaining the attendance of witnesses and in the conduct of suits. . . .”

This is the standard co-operation clause noted in Risjord-Austin, Automobile Liability Cases, Stcmdard Provisions and Appendix (1964), p. 28. This court has on numerous occasions recognized the validity of the standard…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kurz v. CollinsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Plummer v. LeonhardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Foote v. Douglas CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Sloan v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Schauf v. Badger State Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. M.F.A. Mutual Insurance v. CheekIllinois Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Klink v. CappelliCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993
  3. Simonds Ex Rel. Hornig v. BoutonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
  4. M.F.A. Mutual Insurance v. CheekIllinois Supreme Court · 1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API