Legal Opinion

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Seidenspinner

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided January 26, 1994No. 93-0438PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

We hold that Wisconsin law permits insurance coverage issues to be arbitrated, should the contract so provide. We further determine that the automobile insurance policy in this case allows an arbitrator to decide the application of a "drive other car" exclusion. We therefore affirm the trial court's order for arbitration.

The facts of this case are as follows. Mark Seiden-spinner struck a median strip while driving his motorcycle. He fell off, landed in the roadway and sustained injuries when he was struck by a car driven by another motorist. Seidenspinner's motorcycle was not insured. He…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. YapejianIllinois Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Myers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  4. Joint School District No. 10 v. Jefferson Education Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Radlein v. Industrial Fire & Casualty InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Orlowski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Linebaugh v. Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1997
  3. Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Wisconsin Education Ass'n CouncilCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2005
  4. Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Wisconsin Education Ass'n CouncilCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API