is] obligated by virtue of a written contract to provide insurance such as is afforded by this policy." According to Deminsky, Federated was thus also Arlington's insurer, and Federated became bound on the Deminsky-Arlington judgment after failing to defend Arlington, given the duties of an insurer under Radke. We conclude, however, that the indemnity provision in the Image-Arlington sales order was not a "contract to provide insurance." The only mention of "insurance" in the Image-Arlington sales order is a provision which required Image to obtain and show proof of its own insurance coverage prior to loading, transporting or otherwise handling the grinding machine on Arlington's premises. See Campion v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 172 Wis. 2d 405, 415-16, 493 N.W.2d 244 (Ct. App. 1992) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION ¶ 46. For the reasons discussed
holding that leaving the scene and failing to render assistance are separate and distinct offenses holding that plaintiffs claim for loss of consortium is separate and distinct from spouses malpractice claim for purposes of applying insurance policy limitations recognizing that an indemnity provision and an agreement to provide insurance are separate and distinct obligations holding that absent specific language to the contrary benefit funds are separate from union signatories to cbas and that employers obligations to funds are separate from obligations to unions under cbas holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not covered by the arbitration provision in the parties separate premium payment agreement because if the party had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitration provision it could easily clearly and unequivocally have done so either by including an arbitration provision in the insurance policy itself or by adding to the above arbitration provision