Keller v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtROSENBERRY
Citation239 Wis. 354,300 N.W. 471
Decision Date13 January 1942
PartiesKELLER v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

239 Wis. 354
300 N.W. 471

KELLER
v.
HARTFORD FIRE INS.
CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 4, 1941.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1942.


Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Clark County; Emery W. Crosby, Judge.

Affirmed.

[300 N.W. 472]

Clara Keller, plaintiff, began this action on June 25, 1940, against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover $2,500, less any payments made under the mortgage clause pursuant to the policy of insurance issued to her by the defendant. There was a trial to the court which made and filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law and directed judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, which was entered on the 24th day of January, 1941, from which judgment the defendant appeals.

The facts will be stated in the opinion.

Rush, Devos & Skroch, of Neillsville, and Myers & Snerly, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Pors & Pors, of Marshfield, for respondent.


ROSENBERRY, Chief Justice.

Defendant's brief contains no formal assignment of errors but states that the issues involved are:

“(1) Do the above stated facts relative to the plaintiff's title to the property constitute sole and unconditional ownership?

“(2) At the time of the fire was the policy void and unenforceable against the defendant insurer by reason of the failure of the plaintiff to remove the vacancy and unoccupancy condition of the premises prior to the expiration of the time permitted by the policy for vacancy and unoccupancy?”

The facts are substantially undisputed. On October 7, 1937, the defendant issued to the plaintiff a Wisconsin standard fire insurance policy insuring certain residence property in the Village of Granton against loss by fire. Attached to the policy when delivered was standard form No. 49, which contained a provision granting permission for the premises to be and remain vacant for a period not exceeding sixty days, or to be and remain unoccupied for a period not exceeding six months, with the further provision that if the said premises are vacant for more than sixty days or unoccupied for more than six months, the policy is void unless a special form should be attached. No such special permission was granted by the company.

The policy also contained the standard policy clause providing that the insurer shall not be liable for loss where the described building is unoccupied beyond a period of ten days and also the standard policy provision that the policy shall be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • McKinney v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., No. 11039
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 16 Junio 1959
    ...(N.Y.) 328; Georgia Home Insurance Company v. Kinnier's Adm'x, 28 Grat. 88; Keller v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., 239 Wis. 354, 300 N.W. 471; Day v. Hustisford Farmers' Mutual Insurance Company, 192 Wis. 160, 212 N.W. 301; 29 Am.Jur., Insurance, Section 815; Annotati......
  • Roberts v. Maine Bonding and Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • 31 Julio 1979
    ...with the opinion herein. McKUSICK, C. J., did not sit. --------------- 1 For similar holdings See also Keller v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 239 Wis. 354, 300 N.W. 471, 473 (1941); Stuart v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 18 N.C.App. 518, 197 S.E.2d 250 (1973); Gordon v. St. Paul Fire & Marine In......
2 cases
  • McKinney v. Providence Washington Ins. Co., No. 11039
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 16 Junio 1959
    ...(N.Y.) 328; Georgia Home Insurance Company v. Kinnier's Adm'x, 28 Grat. 88; Keller v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., 239 Wis. 354, 300 N.W. 471; Day v. Hustisford Farmers' Mutual Insurance Company, 192 Wis. 160, 212 N.W. 301; 29 Am.Jur., Insurance, Section 815; Annotati......
  • Roberts v. Maine Bonding and Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • 31 Julio 1979
    ...with the opinion herein. McKUSICK, C. J., did not sit. --------------- 1 For similar holdings See also Keller v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 239 Wis. 354, 300 N.W. 471, 473 (1941); Stuart v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 18 N.C.App. 518, 197 S.E.2d 250 (1973); Gordon v. St. Paul Fire & Marine In......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT