Fink v. La Crosse Mutual Fire Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.
The policies in question contained the following provision, which is required under the standard fire insurance policy law of Wisconsin:
‘‘Thi-s entire policy shall be void if the insured has concealed, or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this -insurance or the subject thereof, or in case of.any fraud orHfalse swearing by the insured touching any mafter relating- to this insurance or the subject thereof, whether before or after a loss.”
This court has held in F. Dohmen Co. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. 96 Wis. 38, 71 N. W. 69:
“Any .trick, artifice, or deception practiced…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Beyer v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- F. Dohmen Co. v. Niagara Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Dogge v. Northwestern National InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Bannon v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
- Wiesman v. American Insurance Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Gechijian v. Richmond InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Liberty Tea Co. v. La Salle Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Kline v. Washington National InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Bobczyk v. Integrity Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941