Palmer v. Autoist Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 April 1940 |
| Citation | 234 Wis. 287,291 N.W. 364 |
| Parties | PALMER, Director of Insurance, v. AUTOIST MUT. INS. CO et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Walworth County; Alfred L. Drury, Judge.
Affirmed.
Action for contribution by Ernest Palmer, Director of Insurance of the State of Illinois, as liquidator of Builders and Manufacturers Mutual Casualty Company, against Autoist Mutual Insurance Company and another commenced August 11, 1937. From a summary judgment dismissing the complaint, entered August 23, 1939, the plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Moran & O'Brien, of Delavan, for appellant.
Quarles, Spence & Quarles, of Milwaukee (Arthur Wickham, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondents.
The plaintiff is the liquidator of the insolvent Builders and Manufacturers Mutual Casualty Company. The insurance company before becoming insolvent paid a judgment against it rendered in Minnesota in an action by one Fagerborg to recover for personal injuries sustained in a collision in Wisconsin between two trucks. One truck was owned by Behrend Trux, Inc., a corporation located at Minneapolis, on which the Builders and Manufacturers Mutual Casualty Company had issued its policy indemnifying the insured against loss sustained through negligent operation of the truck. The other truck was owned by one Wakershauser and driven by the defendant Smith, on which the defendant insurance company had issued its policy indemnifying the insured against loss sustained through its negligent operation. The instant suit is for contribution, and is based on the claim that the defendant Smith was negligent in the operation of the truck he was driving and that his negligence contributed proximately to produce the injuries for which recovery was had in the Minnesota action. Neither Smith, Wakershauser nor the defendant insurance company was a party to the Minnesota action. One of the defenses interposed in the instant action, and the only one which we need consider under our view of the case, is that no written notice of injury was served on the defendants within two years from the time of the accident which sec. 330.19 (5), Wisconsin Stats., requires as condition precedent to commencement of an action to recover for personal injuries.
The defendants filed a motion for a summary judgment dismissing the complaint for want of service of the notice above referred to and want of commencement of an action and service of the complaint within the two year period, which latter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmers Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Milwaukee Auto. Ins. Co.
...275 Wis. 236, 81 N.W.2d 486. At one time we held common liability had to exist at the time of the trial. In Palmer v. Autoist Mut. Ins. Co., 1940, 234 Wis. 287, 291 N.W. 364, recovery for contribution was denied on the ground no liability existed at the time of trial between the defendant a......
-
Rusch v. Korth
...extent from the strict rule that only one who is subject to a common liability may have contribution. While in Palmer v. Autoist Mut. Ins. Co., 234 Wis. 287, 291 N.W. 364, it was held that a joint tort-feasor who had paid plaintiff's judgment could not have contribution from the other joint......
-
Northwest Airlines v. Glenn L. Martin Company
...negligence contributing to the damages, the trial court dismissed the cross-complaint, on the authority of Palmer v. Autoist Mutual Ins. Co., 1940, 234 Wis. 287, 289, 291 N.W. 364. In reviewing and reversing, the appellate court said (34 N.W.2d "As was said by the court in the Palmer case, ......
-
Poynter v. Johnston, 81-2046
...facet of the Ainsworth Case [v. Berg, 253 Wis. 438, 34 N.W.2d 790, 35 N.W.2d 911] is that it overruled Palmer v. Autoist Mut. Ins. Co. (1940), 234 Wis. 287, 291 N.W. 364, which had adopted the argument here advanced by Brown county, vix.: The giving of the notice of injury was a condition p......