Hickey v. Wisconsin Mutual Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
Appellant, having assumed control over the litigation in the case where respondent was plaintiff and Ethel Samuels defendant, now seeks to avoid its responsibility as insurer and to be excused from satisfying the judgment obtained against the insured by showing that with the consent of the insured it reserved to itself the right to repudiate lia bility. Appellant relies on the general rule which we recognize that an insurer may defend the insured and still reserve its defenses on the policy in regard to coverage or forfeiture. 29 Am. Jur. p. 672, § 878; p. 673; § 879; 72 A. L. R. 1498, 76 A.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Buckner v. BucknerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Columbia Casualty Co. v. IngramCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
3Cited by11 opinions
- United States Guarantee Co. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
- Maxwell v. Hartford Union High School DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 2012
- Erie Insurance Exchange v. LaneCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1967
- New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. SimpsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
- Calhoun v. Western Casualty & Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.