Court Opinion

ID: 9711220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:26:44.969622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:02.999158
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
(on rehearing). On motion for rehearing, our attention has been called to an erroneous statement of fact in the decision and for that reason the following is stricken from the first page of the opinion that appears at 34 Wis. (2d) 183:
“. . . A basic coverage policy, issued by Herman Mutual Insurance Company, was used to provide a specific amount for each location. A reporting form policy, issued by Midland Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, supplemented the basic coverage policy and was designed to cover inventory fluctuations at a location.”
In lieu thereof the following is inserted:
“. . . A limit policy on contents, issued by Herman Mutual Insurance Company, was in effect for other Artmar properties, which policy provided coverage on contents for each location on a reporting form basis. *190bAfter the Kunnert property was acquired, plaintiffs were issued a policy by the Midland Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, which policy was on the structure of the main building of the Kunnert property, with provisions stating that 10 percent of the basic insurance on the dwelling house would automatically extend to cover the outbuilding or outbuildings.”
This error in the facts does not otherwise alter the statement of facts or the substance of the court’s opinion or the outcome of this case, but for accuracy a further correction should be made in the opinion by striking from the opinion under sub. (2) on page 189 the words “Herman Mutual Insurance Company” and inserting in lieu thereof “Midland Mutual Casualty Insurance Company;” and in addition, at page 190, lines 10 and 11 should be altered by striking “Herman Mutual” and inserting “Midland Mutual.”
For clarification purposes, since there is no cause of action under estoppel, the previous mandate of the court is amended to read:
“By the Court. — Order modified to grant summary judgment on cause of action for estoppel and, as so modified, affirmed.”
The motion for rehearing is denied without costs.