Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pavelski v. Roginskigreen2 sentences1983In Pavelski v. Roginski, 1 Wis. 2d 345 , 84 N.W.2d 84 (1957), the issue was whether one driving an automobile with the permission of the owner and named insured was covered as an additional insured under the omnibus coverage clause 3 of the owner’s insurance policy, even though his driver’s li cense had been revoked and therefore he did not have “permission legally granted.” The court applied sec. •204.34, Stats, and stated: “This section forbids certain types of exclusions from coverage. 1983In Pavelski v. Roginski, 1 Wis. 2d 345 , 84 N.W.2d 84 (1957), the issue was whether one driving an automobile with the permission of the owner and named insured was covered as an additional insured under the omnibus coverage clause 3 of the owner’s insurance policy, even though his driver’s li cense had been revoked and therefore he did not have “permission legally granted.” The court applied sec. •204.34, Stats, and stated: “This section forbids certain types of exclusions from coverage. | 1 | 4 |
Arps v. Seelowgreen2 sentences2009We held in Arps that: "The combination of secs. 632.32(3)(a) (the omnibus coverage clause) and 632.32(5)(a), Stats, (the permissive use limitation), requires coverage of any person using the vehicle with permission of an adult member of the insured's household." Id. at 649 . 3 Because Fountain was an adult member of Seelow's household, we held that American Family must provide coverage to her, based on the broad construction of the omnibus statute that "adult members of the household *796 must be deemed capable of giving themselves permission to drive." Id. 2009We held in Arps that: "The combination of secs. 632.32(3)(a) (the omnibus coverage clause) and 632.32(5)(a), Stats, (the permissive use limitation), requires coverage of any person using the vehicle with permission of an adult member of the insured's household." Id. at 649 . 3 Because Fountain was an adult member of Seelow's household, we held that American Family must provide coverage to her, based on the broad construction of the omnibus statute that "adult members of the household *796 must be deemed capable of giving themselves permission to drive." Id. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Paine v. Finkler Motor Car Co.
neutral
2 sentences1959Paine v. Finkler Motor Car Co. (1936), 220 Wis. 9 , 264 N. W. 477 ; Ederer v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. 1959Paine v. Finkler Motor Car Co. (1936), 220 Wis. 9 , 264 N. W. 477 ; Ederer v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. | 2 | 1943–1959 |
Carrell v. Wolken
green
2 sentences2009We agree. ¶ 48 "[O]ne purpose of the omnibus coverage requirement is to afford the additional insured the same protection as is afforded to the named insured." Carrell v. Wolken, 173 Wis.2d 426, 437 , 496 N.W.2d 651 (Ct.App.1992). 2009We agree. ¶ 48 "[O]ne purpose of the omnibus coverage requirement is to afford the additional insured the same protection as is afforded to the named insured." Carrell v. Wolken, 173 Wis.2d 426, 437 , 496 N.W.2d 651 (Ct.App.1992). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Schneider v. Depies
green
2 sentences1973In Shanahan v. Midland Coach Lines (1954), 268 Wis. 233 , 67 N. W. 2d 297 , we referred to “coverage” of the policy and then used the word “protection.” In Schneider v. Depies (1954), 266 Wis. 43 , 62 N. W. 2d 431 , we referred to the limiting of the liability of the insurer in its policy in reference to the omnibus coverage clause in terms of both “coverage” and “protection.” Thus, when the omnibus statute speaks of the indemnity which must be extended, it is speaking of both coverage in a limited sense and limits of liability and therefore National Indemnity could not issue a policy granting 1973In Shanahan v. Midland Coach Lines (1954), 268 Wis. 233 , 67 N. W. 2d 297 , we referred to “coverage” of the policy and then used the word “protection.” In Schneider v. Depies (1954), 266 Wis. 43 , 62 N. W. 2d 431 , we referred to the limiting of the liability of the insurer in its policy in reference to the omnibus coverage clause in terms of both “coverage” and “protection.” Thus, when the omnibus statute speaks of the indemnity which must be extended, it is speaking of both coverage in a limited sense and limits of liability and therefore National Indemnity could not issue a policy granting | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Shanahan v. Midland Coach Lines
green
2 sentences1973In Shanahan v. Midland Coach Lines (1954), 268 Wis. 233 , 67 N. W. 2d 297 , we referred to “coverage” of the policy and then used the word “protection.” In Schneider v. Depies (1954), 266 Wis. 43 , 62 N. W. 2d 431 , we referred to the limiting of the liability of the insurer in its policy in reference to the omnibus coverage clause in terms of both “coverage” and “protection.” Thus, when the omnibus statute speaks of the indemnity which must be extended, it is speaking of both coverage in a limited sense and limits of liability and therefore National Indemnity could not issue a policy granting 1973In Shanahan v. Midland Coach Lines (1954), 268 Wis. 233 , 67 N. W. 2d 297 , we referred to “coverage” of the policy and then used the word “protection.” In Schneider v. Depies (1954), 266 Wis. 43 , 62 N. W. 2d 431 , we referred to the limiting of the liability of the insurer in its policy in reference to the omnibus coverage clause in terms of both “coverage” and “protection.” Thus, when the omnibus statute speaks of the indemnity which must be extended, it is speaking of both coverage in a limited sense and limits of liability and therefore National Indemnity could not issue a policy granting | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Universal Underwriters v. Rogan
neutral
2 sentences1970Universal Underwriters v. Rogan (1959), 6 Wis. 2d 623, 633 , 95 N. W. 2d 921 , relied upon by the appellants, stated, “So long as liability for any use other than business is covered, the policy must contain the omnibus coverage clause.” The court therein, however, made it clear that it was relying upon Culver v. Webb (1944), 244 Wis. 478 , 12 N. W. 2d 731 , wherein there was a question of the non-business, pleasure use of the insured’s automobile. 1970Universal Underwriters v. Rogan (1959), 6 Wis. 2d 623, 633 , 95 N. W. 2d 921 , relied upon by the appellants, stated, “So long as liability for any use other than business is covered, the policy must contain the omnibus coverage clause.” The court therein, however, made it clear that it was relying upon Culver v. Webb (1944), 244 Wis. 478 , 12 N. W. 2d 731 , wherein there was a question of the non-business, pleasure use of the insured’s automobile. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Albers v. Shapiro
neutral
2 sentences1970A situation similar to that herein appears in Albers v. Shapiro (1963), 22 Wis. 2d 144 , 125 N. W. 2d 321 . 1970A situation similar to that herein appears in Albers v. Shapiro (1963), 22 Wis. 2d 144 , 125 N. W. 2d 321 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Culver v. Webb
green
2 sentences1970Universal Underwriters v. Rogan (1959), 6 Wis. 2d 623, 633 , 95 N. W. 2d 921 , relied upon by the appellants, stated, “So long as liability for any use other than business is covered, the policy must contain the omnibus coverage clause.” The court therein, however, made it clear that it was relying upon Culver v. Webb (1944), 244 Wis. 478 , 12 N. W. 2d 731 , wherein there was a question of the non-business, pleasure use of the insured’s automobile. 1970Universal Underwriters v. Rogan (1959), 6 Wis. 2d 623, 633 , 95 N. W. 2d 921 , relied upon by the appellants, stated, “So long as liability for any use other than business is covered, the policy must contain the omnibus coverage clause.” The court therein, however, made it clear that it was relying upon Culver v. Webb (1944), 244 Wis. 478 , 12 N. W. 2d 731 , wherein there was a question of the non-business, pleasure use of the insured’s automobile. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Mancheski v. Derwae
green
1 sentence1960On this point see Mancheski v. Derwae, post, p. 467, 105 N. W. (2d) 773 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Maurer v. Fesing
green
2 sentences1957Maurer v. Fesing (1940), 233 Wis. 565, 571 , 290 N. W. 191 , and Schimke v. Mutual Automobile Ins. 1957Maurer v. Fesing (1940), 233 Wis. 565, 571 , 290 N. W. 191 , and Schimke v. Mutual Automobile Ins. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Frye v. Theige
green
2 sentences1954The provision excluding coverage to’an additional insured in the case of injury to the named insured which was held invalid in the Schenke Case was placed under general ex-, elusions in the policy considered in Frye v. Theige (1948), 253 Wis. 596, 600 , 34 N. W. (2d) 793 , and it was argued that it was likewise invalid even though not located in the omnibus coverage clause. 1954The provision excluding coverage to’an additional insured in the case of injury to the named insured which was held invalid in the Schenke Case was placed under general ex-, elusions in the policy considered in Frye v. Theige (1948), 253 Wis. 596, 600 , 34 N. W. (2d) 793 , and it was argued that it was likewise invalid even though not located in the omnibus coverage clause. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Ainsworth v. Berg
green
2 sentences1954It was pointed out in the Depies Case and in Ainsworth v. Berg (1948), 253 Wis. 438 , 34 N. W. (2d) 790 , 35 N. W. (2d) 911 , that sec. 204.30 (3), Stats., is not meant to give additional insureds greater coverage than that given the named insured. 1954It was pointed out in the Depies Case and in Ainsworth v. Berg (1948), 253 Wis. 438 , 34 N. W. (2d) 790 , 35 N. W. (2d) 911 , that sec. 204.30 (3), Stats., is not meant to give additional insureds greater coverage than that given the named insured. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Ederer v. Milwaukee Automobile Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1943Co. 220 Wis. 635 , 265 N. W. 694 , and Paine v. Finkler Motor *489 Car Co., supra, this court held that the omnibus coverage clause imported into policies by sec. 204.30 (3), Stats., does not apply to make public garages or their agents additional assureds. 1943Co. 220 Wis. 635 , 265 N. W. 694 , and Paine v. Finkler Motor *489 Car Co., supra, this court held that the omnibus coverage clause imported into policies by sec. 204.30 (3), Stats., does not apply to make public garages or their agents additional assureds. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.