Leest v. Basten
| Decision Date | 08 December 1942 |
| Parties | VANDE LEEST v. BASTEN et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Brown County; Henry Graass, Judge.
Affirmed.
Action by Clayton Vande Leest against Jacob C. Basten and Yorkshire Indemnity Company of New York commenced on November 18, 1941 to recover for damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant, Yorkshire Indemnity Company of New York, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it upon the ground that coverage was lost because of a failure by insured to give defendant company notice of the accident.
From an order entered March 20, 1942 denying motion, the defendant, Yorkshire Indemnity Company of New York, appeals. The material facts will be stated in the opinion.
Kaftan, Rahr & Kaftan, of Green Bay, for appellant.
Alk, Kresky, Cohen & Hughes, of Green Bay, for respondent Vande Leest.
Chadek, Cornelisen & Denissen, of Green Bay, for respondent Basten.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that on November 22, 1939 at about 5:30 in the evening, plaintiff was operating a motorcycle on Willow Street in the city of Green Bay; that defendant, Basten, was driving in an easterly direction just ahead of plaintiff, and in the lane of traffic closest to the right curb; that as Basten approached the intersection of St. George and Willow Street, he brought his car to a stop, whereupon plaintiff proceeded to pass the Basten car in the lane of traffic nearest the center of the highway; that as he was about to pass, Basten started his automobile, turned it to the left across the lane of travel of plaintiff's motorcycle, causing plaintiff to veer out of his course, lose control and crash into a telephone pole.
These allegations were put in issue by Basten. The Yorkshire Indemnity Company alleged that it had no knowledge of the accident, or of plaintiff's claim until November 18, 1941; that its interests were prejudiced by failure of Basten to give notice in accordance with its policy of insurance, which requires as a condition precedent to coverage that the insurer be given written notice of the accident as soon as practicable; that as a consequence, Basten lost his coverage, and the insurance company sustains no liability for plaintiff's damages. The allegations of the complaint are also put in issue.
Basten cross-complained against the insurance company and set up that there was no contact between his vehicle and that of plaintiff; that Basten's car was not so maneuvered as to affect plaintiff's course of travel; that plaintiff simply lost control of his vehicle and hit a post; that defendant, Basten, stopped and rendered him such assistance as possible and detailed the circumstances to police officers, who advised him that it was not necessary to make a report of the accident to the police as he was not a participant but merely a witness; that defendant, Basten, heard nothing more concerning the accident until several weeks later when a newspaper published the information that plaintiff had pleaded guilty to charges of improper driving in passing Basten's car at the intersection. Basten alleges that the Indemnity Company had notice of the accident on April 18, 1941; that Basten had no notice that plaintiff was making any claim against him until the summons was served, whereupon he promptly gave notice.
The Indemnity Company moved for summary judgment and set forth the policy provisions requiring written notice of accidents “as soon as practicable”; that Basten did not give such notice; that the Indemnity Company knew nothing of the accident until nearly two years after its occurrence.
Basten filed a counter-affidavit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RTE Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co.
...twenty days previously. In the case of liability insurance policy requiring notice of accident it was said in Vande Leest v. Basten, 241 Wis. 509, 513, 6 N.W.2d 667, 669 (1942), that there was no duty to give notice unless the insured 'has reasonable grounds to believe that he is a particip......
-
Garcia by Ladd v. Regent Ins. Co., 91-1100
...reasonable grounds to believe that he is a participant in an accident. Id. at 659, 235 N.W.2d at 469 (quoting Vande Leest v. Basten, 241 Wis. 509, 512-13, 6 N.W.2d 667, 669 (1942)) (emphasis Regardless of whether we agree with the trial court's statement that Rene's duty to give Regent noti......
-
Haddock Const. Co. v. Wilber et al.
...in the 1943 Revision of the A.L.R. Blue Book of Supp. Decisions, at p. 68, and supplement No. 5 thereto p. 11, citing Vande Leest v. Basten, 241 Wis. 509, 6 N.W. (2d) 667. The judgment of the circuit court is ...
-
Miller v. Zurich General Acc. & Liability Ins. Co.
...question of fact to be determined before liability may be imposed upon the insurer, but it is not a fixed time. Vande Leest v. Basten, 241 Wis. 509, 6 N.W.2d 667 (Sup.Ct.1942); 8 Appleman on Insurance, § 4734, Note 34, p. 1007. In Macchia v. Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co., 101 N.J.L. 258, 1......