In Artmar, Inc. v. United Fire & Casualty Co., 34 Wis. 2d 181, 148 N.W.2d 641 (1967), the insurance company wrote a policy covering only residential property despite the fact that the insurance agent knew that the plaintiff wanted the nonresidential property also insured. The insured alleged that the insurer was estopped from asserting a defense based on the written policy because its agent failed to obtain a policy conforming to the expectations of the insured. See Artmar, 34 Wis. 2d at 185. The insured allegedly relied on its belief that the policy covered all property and was harmed by the denial of the claim following the destruction of the nonresidential property. See Artmar, 34 Wis. 2d at 184.