Severin v. Luchinske
Decision Date | 06 December 1955 |
Citation | 73 N.W.2d 477,271 Wis. 378 |
Parties | Oscar SEVERIN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Benjamin LUCHINSKE, Defendant-Respondent, Milwaukee Automobile Insurance Company, Ltd., Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
McCue & Regan, Milwaukee, Evrard, Evrard, Duffy, Holman & Faulds, Green Bay, for appellant.
Fisher, Peickert, Anderson & Fisher, Stevens Point, John E. Shannon, Jr., Stevens
Point, of counsel, Morgan L. Midthun, Wisconsin Rapids, for respondent.
The policy provides, among other things, that:
'The company agrees with the insured, named in the declarations made a part hereof, in consideration of the payment of the premium and in reliance upon the statements in the declarations and subject to the limits of liability, exclusions, conditions and other terms of this policy:
'Insuring Agreements
Sec. 204.30(3), Stats., provides:
The provisions of the statute would afford to the defendant Luchinske the protection of the policy for which plaintiff contends, unless other policy provisions operate to make the statutory provisions ineffective or inapplicable.
Under the heading Exclusions, appear the following provisions:
'This policy does not apply: * * *
'(c) under coverage A, ....., to bodily injury to ....., ..... any employee of the insured while engaged in the employment of the insured, .....; or to any obligation for which the insured or any company as his insurer may be held liable under any workmen's compensation law;'
Defendant Milwaukee Automobile Insurance Company contends that these provisions are effective to preclude recovery.
Zippel v. Country Gardens, Inc., 1952, 262 Wis. 567, 55 N.W.2d 903 was an action in every material factual respect identical with the instant case. Plaintiff and defendant Derocher were co-employees of Country Gardens, Inc. A truck owned by the employer, insured by Firemen's Fund Indemnity Company, occupied by the plaintiff and being operated by Derocher, was involved in a collision resulting in injuries to plaintiff. At the time of the accident plaintiff and Derocher were performing work in the course of their employment. Derocher, the common employer, and Firemen's Fund Indemnity Company were joined as defendants. The policy involved, which had been issued by Firemen's Fund Indemnity Company to the employer, contained an exclusion clause identical in its terms with that presently before the court. We held in accord with the decision in Sandstrom v. Estate of Clausen, 1951, 258 Wis. 534, 46 N.W.2d 831, that the clause is repugnant to the provisions of sec. 204.30(3) Stats., and that the insurer was subject to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adams v. Northland Equip. Co.
...him.” Smale v. Wrought Washer Mfg. Co., 160 Wis. 331, 334, 151 N.W. 803 (1915) (emphasis supplied); see also Severin v. Luchinske, 271 Wis. 378, 383, 73 N.W.2d 477 (1955) (“That remedy [a third party action] existed at common law and was neither enlarged nor impaired by enactment of sec. 10......
-
Price v. King
...856, 859--860; Merchants Mut. Cas. Co. v. Tuttle, 98 N.H. 349, 101 A.2d 262; Herbert v. Layman, Vt., 218 A.2d 706; and Severin v. Luchinske, 271 Wis. 378, 73 N.W.2d 477. See also 101 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 985e., page 481; 58 Am.Jur., Workmen's Compensation, sections 60--61, pages ......
-
Kelly v. State Automobile Insurance Association
...v. Faulstich, 1951, 259 Wis. 7, 47 N.W.2d 317; Zippel v. Country Gordens, Inc., 1952, 262 Wis. 567, 55 N.W. 2d 903; Severin v. Luchinske, 1955, 271 Wis. 378, 73 N.W.2d 477; Matteson v. Johnson, 1957, 275 Wis. 615, 82 N.W.2d 3 Greaves v. Public Service Mutual Insurance Co., 1959, 5 N.Y.2d 12......
-
Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Girard Steel Supply Co.
...compensation law does not change the fact that (the third party's) liability is based upon his wrongful acts. See Severin v. Luchinske, 271 Wis. 378 73 N.W. 2d 477. Sec. 102.29(2) applies where an employer or his insurer has sustained loss by reason of the negligence of a third party. Oblig......