No. 97-3492

	STATE OF WISCONSIN	IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT I
Federated Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Parts Distributing Inc., Defendant-Respondent.			FILED June 9, 1998 CLERK OF COURT Of APPEALS OF WISCONSIN

ERRATA SHEET

Marilyn L. Graves
Clerk of Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 1688
Madison, WI 53701-1688

Court of Appeals District I
633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400
Milwaukee, WI 53203-1918

Court of Appeals District III
740 Third Street
Wausau, WI 54403-5784

Jennifer Krapf
Administrative Assistant
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703

Peg Carlson
Chief Staff Attorney
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703

Court of Appeals District II
2727 N. Grandview Blvd.
Waukesha, WI 53188-1672

Court of Appeals District IV
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703

Hon. Frederick P. Kessler

RE: (L.C. #95-SC-011467)

901 N. 9th Street

Milwaukee, WI 53233

Jon W. Sanfilippo, Trial Court Clerk

Appeals Processing Division

901 N. 9th Street, Room G-8

Milwaukee, WI 53233

Steven L. Stolper

Polacheck and Harris

710 N. Plankinton Ave., Ste. 700

Milwaukee, WI 53203-1941

Suzanne F. Lorenz

Cramer, Multhauf & Hammes

P.O. Box 558

Waukesha, WI 53187

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached page 6 is to be substituted for page 6 in the above-captioned opinion which was released on June 2, 1998.

period was almost over. The original policies were retroactively canceled as of January 1, 1994, and the new policies presented to Haidinger some time in mid‑March would have covered the same time frame. Parts Distributing was in a much better position to assess its need for insurance once the covered period was almost over than it would have been had Federated alerted Haidinger of its decision at the beginning of the three months, but this was a result of Federated’s actions, not Haidinger’s. Federated’s delay in communicating its intent to cancel the old policies and apprising Haidinger of the new premiums placed Haidinger in a far different bargaining position than he would have been at the beginning of the period. Federated’s waiting until almost two weeks before the expiration of the covered period to both cancel the old policies and raise the premiums on the new ones gave Parts Distributing an almost risk-free option of simply foregoing any insurance coverage for that time period. Federated, however, was responsible for these conditions. The bottom line is that the trial court correctly found that there was never any contract between the parties for the purchase of the new policies at the higher rate. The order is affirmed.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.