Court Opinion

ID: 9661148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:30:31.009971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:25.728367
License: Public Domain

Geex, J.
{concurring). One of the rules of this case is fixed by Laughnan v. Griffiths (1955), 271 Wis. 247, 73 N. W. (2d) 587, and for that reason alone I concur in the court’s opinion. I consider, however, that I should .call attention to the fact that in the former case we suggested and have now made it quite clear thawit is possible for a jury, as well as the court, to supply the missing contract. It remains only for the trial court, when the issue is submitted to a jury, to devise the means of ascertaining by the jury’s verdict what the terms of that contract are.
Currie, J.
{concurring). While I concur in the opinion of the court in this case, I am fearful that as such opinion now stands there is a possibility of the trial court being misled as to the issues to be tried out in the new trial with respect to the legal effect to be accorded filing of the SR-21. That to which I have particular reference are the words "intending to be bound thereby” which the opinion quotes from *53our decision in Laughnan v. Griffiths (1955), 271 Wis. 247, 259, 73 N. W. (2d) 587. It will be recalled that in the Laughnan Case we were concerned with an allegation on the part of the Insurance Company that it had filed the SR-21 by mistake, and the above-quoted words had direct reference to such issue of mistake.
The Safety Responsibility Law and not the secret intention of He Insurance Company, which has voluntarily- filed an SR-21, must govern the legal effect, of such filing.. TJie words “intending to he. bound thereby” of the Laughnan Case should be interpreted as meaning no more than that the company files, the, SR-21 for the purpose of complying with the provisions of sec. 85.09 (5) (d), Stats. A mistaken idea of what the legal consequences are which may result from such filing will not relieve it from liability. Such is not the type of mistake with which we were dealing in the Laughnan Case., „
I cannot agree with the statement made by Mr. Justice! Gehl in his concurring opinion that any jury issue is presented in a case of this kind as to what the contract of in-\ surance is. That is always a matter of law for the court to determine. The jury issues with respect to the filing of the SR-21 in the instant case will be limited to whether the same was filed voluntarily with intent to comply with sec. 85.09 (5) (d), Stats., and whether the person filing the same in behalf of the Insurance Company had actual on ostensible authority to file the SR-21.