Sandstrom v. Clausen's Estate
| Decision Date | 06 March 1951 |
| Citation | 46 N.W.2d 831,258 Wis. 534 |
| Parties | SANDSTROM, v. CLAUSEN'S ESTATE et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Toebaas, Hart, Kraege & Jackman, Madison, for appellant.
Frank W. Cosgrove, Fond du Lac, S. Richard Heath, Fond du Lac, of counsel, for respondent.
Sec. 204.30(3), Stats., has remained unchanged since 1943. Numerous cases have come before us requiring its interpretation and have resulted in decisions which it now seems impossible to reconcile. In such a situation we consider it advisable to re-examine the statute with as little bias as possible because of what we have said on other occasions. So viewed, and in the light of our experience with many cases which have presented various aspects of the problems which the statute is designed to treat, we conclude that by the purchase and sale of a policy such as the one described in the foregoing statement of facts the insurer and the named insured have agreed that the latter shall not have insurance against claims brought by his own employees against him. By the 'Definition of 'Insured" in the policy and by the omnibus coverage of sec. 204.30(3), Stats. incorporated in the policy by law, the indemnity which the named insured has is extended to apply in the same manner and under the same provisions as it is applicable to the named assured to those who operate the automobile with the named assured's consent, and also to those who are legally responsible for its operation, provided that operation is with the consent of the named assured. That is, assuming such consent, just as the named assured has no insurance protection if the claim is by his own employee but is protected against the claims of all others, so an additional insured has no protection when the claim is by his employee but is protected against the claims of persons not so related to him, no matter who else may be the employer of the claimant.
Insurance companies have consistently attempted to limit their liability by proposing that if any possible party against whom the injured person might have made a claim was such person's employer, then the actual defendant, regardless of such relationship, is excluded from coverage. We do not think that this was the intent of the legislature when it enacted sec. 204.30(3), Stats., nor that such a result is required by the language of that section.
To direct our attention to the instant case, Clausen bought a policy which did not provide coverage for him if claim was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnette v. Hartford Ins. Group, 5687
...67 F.2d 309 (9th Cir.1933); Pullen v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 230 La. 867, 89 So.2d 373 (1956); Sandstrom v. Clausen's Estate, 258 Wis. 534, 46 N.W.2d 831 (1951); Shanahan v. Midland Coach Lines, 268 Wis. 233, 67 N.W.2d 297 "In the Pullen case, which policy did not contain a se......
-
Stone v. Acuity
...44 C.J.S. Insurance, § 302 at 1215-16; Zippel v. Country Gardens, Inc., 262 Wis. 567, 55 N.W.2d 903 (1952); Sandstrom v. Estate of Clausen, 258 Wis. 534, 46 N.W.2d 831 (1951)). In this case, the applicable legislative prescription includes both the Wis. Stat. § 632.32(4m) requirement that c......
-
AMERICAN FIDEL. & CAS. CO. v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co., 16441.
...Auto. Ins. Co. v. Smoot, D.C.W. Va., 95 F.Supp. 600. Wisconsin cases rest heavily on a special statute, discussed, Sandstrom v. Clausen's Estate, 258 Wis. 534, 46 N.W.2d 831; McMann v. Faulstich, 1951, 259 Wis. 7, 47 N.W.2d 317; Zippel v. Country Gardens, Inc., 262 Wis. 567, 55 N.W.2d 903; ......
-
Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company. v. Statemen Ins. Co., 1169A223
...95 F.Supp. 600; Pullen v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. (1956), 230 La. 867, 89 So.2d 373; Sandstrom v. Clausen's Estate (1951), 258 Wis. 534, 46 N.W.2d 831; Shanahan v. Midland Coach Lines (1954), 268 Wis. 233, 67 N.W.2d 297.18 Quoting a case note in 39 Texas L.Rev. 115, 118, which ......