Ramsdell v. Insurance Co. of North America
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCrownhart, J.
There was one building insured; 'there was one fire; there was one loss. There were two separate insurable interests in the building, and all policies issued were valid policies. These facts are admitted. The policies were all standard policies under the Wisconsin statutes. Each contained the provision that the insurer might at its option rebuild or restore the property instead of paying the loss in cash. None of the companies exercised that right. The lessee also had the right under the lease to restore the building, which it did. It is conceded that the lessee has been paid in full for its…
2Cited by34 opinions
- Hughes v. Potomac InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Paramount Fire Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1962
- Citizens Insurance Company of New Jersey, a Corporation v. Foxbilt, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1955
- Wolf v. Home Insurance Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1968
- Kintzel v. Wheatland Mutual Insurance Ass'nSupreme Court of Iowa · 1973
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.