Fee v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co.

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFAIRCHILD
CitationFee v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 117 N.W.2d 269, 17 Wis.2d 364 (Wis. 1962)
Decision Date02 October 1962
PartiesMerrill FEE, Appellant, v. HERITAGE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., a Wis. corporation, Respondent.

William F. Hayes, Ripon, William A. Ritchay, Milwaukee, of counsel, for appellant.

John P. McGalloway, Sr., William D. McGalloway, Fond du Lac, for respondent.

FAIRCHILD, Justice.

By the provision relied upon, the defendant insurance company agreed

'To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of:

'A. bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom, hereinafter called 'bodily injury', sustained by any person;

'B. injury to or destruction of property, including loss of use thereof, hereinafter called 'property damage';

arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the owned automobile or any non-owned automobile, and the company shall defend any suit alleging such bodily injury or property damages and seeking damages which are payable under the terms of this policy, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent; but the company may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient.'

Plaintiff contends that by this provision the insurance company has promised to pay those sums which he became obligated to pay, in order to provide his wife with medical and hospital care made necessary by her injury arising out of the use of the automobile. The language of the provision does not support his contention.

The contract provides that the insurer will pay all sums which the insured is legally obligated to pay as damages. Damages are:

'A pecuniary compensation or indemnity, which may be recovered in the courts by any person who has suffered loss, detriment, or injury, whether to his person, property, or rights, through the unlawful act or omission or negligence of another.' 1

The law, for reasons of policy, requires a husband to support his wife. 2 His duty includes an obligation to pay for medical care furnished her. 3 When he has paid or incurred sums for such care, he may recover them as damages from one who is legally responsible for the injury which made them necessary, but his marital obligation is not an obligation to pay them as damages. Since Mr. Fee was not legally obligated to pay Mrs. Fee's expenses as damages, he can not recover those sums under his insurance policy.

It happens that Mrs. Fee was injured in a...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 cases
  • SHOREWOOD SCHOOL DIST. v. Wausau Ins.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1992
    ...The only Wisconsin case that might arguably support the insurance carriers' interpretation of "damages" is Fee v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co., 17 Wis. 2d 364, 117 N.W.2d 269 (1962), overruled on other grounds, In re Estate of Stromstead, 99 Wis. 2d 136, 299 N.W.2d 226 (1980). Fee turns to......
  • School Dist. of Shorewood v. Wausau Ins. Companies
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • August 27, 1992
    ...continue to annually pay monies to fund these programs.5 See Caporali, 102 Wis.2d at 676, 307 N.W.2d 218.6 See Fee v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 17 Wis.2d 364, 117 N.W.2d 269 (1962), overruled on other grounds, 99 Wis.2d 136, 144, 299 N.W.2d 226 (1980). In Fee, this court recognized that "dama......
  • Stromsted's Estate, Matter of
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1980
    ...35 Wis.2d 282, 295, 151 N.W.2d 86 (1967); Fischer v. Fischer, 31 Wis.2d 293, 309, 142 N.W.2d 857 (1966); Fee v. Heritage Mut. Insurance Co., 17 Wis.2d 364, 117 N.W.2d 269 (1962); Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co., 8 Wis.2d 343, 349, 99 N.W.2d 163 The hospital challenges this rule and se......
  • Thomas v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 1986
    ...to his person, property, or rights, through the unlawful act or omission or negligence of another. Fee v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co., 17 Wis.2d 364, 366, 117 N.W.2d 269, 270 (1962), overruled on other grounds, In re Estate of Stromsted, 99 Wis.2d 136, 299 N.W.2d 226 (1980) (citation omit......
  • Get Started for Free