exclusion clause in Minnesota

26 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1920–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (14)

Case	Followed	Cited
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.green minn · 1995 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2003–2018 2 sentences 2018Co. , 536 N.W.2d 305 , 314 (Minn. 1995) ("[O]nce the insurer shows the application of an exclusion clause, the burden of proof shifts back to the insured because the exception to the exclusion 'restores' coverage for which the insured bears the burden of proof."), overruled on other grounds by Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. , 766 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 2009). 2003Co., 536 N.W.2d 305, 313 (Minn.1995). [Ojnce the insurer shows the application of an exclusion clause, the burden of proof shifts back to the insured because the exception to the exclusion “restores” coverage for which the insured bears the burden of proof.	2	2
Flynn v. Sawyergreen minn · 1978 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994 2 sentences 1994See Flynn v. Sawyer, 272 N.W.2d 904, 907-08 (Minn.1978) (parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written agreement absent ambiguity or incompleteness); Pedersen v. United Servs. 1994See Flynn v. Sawyer, 272 N.W.2d 904, 907-08 (Minn.1978) (parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written agreement absent ambiguity or incompleteness); Pedersen v. United Servs.	2	2
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co.green minn · 2006 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co., 718 N.W.2d 888, 894 (Minn.2006). “[0]nce the insurer shows the application of an exclusion clause, the burden of proof shifts back to the insured because the exception to the exclusion ‘restores’ coverage for which the insured bears the burden of proof.” SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mut.	1	1
State v. Postengreen minn · 1981 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 1 sentence 2010State v. Posten, 302 N.W.2d 638, 642 (Minn.1981).	1	1
Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co.green minn · 1997 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008Co., 559 N.W.2d 411, 419 (Minn.1997) (“Typically, this court has defined the words ‘arising out of in an insurance policy to mean ‘causally connected with’ and not ‘proximately caused by.’ ”); Roloff v. Taste of Minn., 488 N.W.2d 325, 326 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 20, 1992) (stating that “arising out of’ language “unambiguously excludes coverage when a claim is causally related to” the conduct described in the exclusion clause — there assault and battery — even if the actual claim is for negligence); Ross v. City of Minneapolis, 408 N.W.2d 910, 912 (Minn.App.1987) (stating tha	1	1
Roloff v. Taste of Minnesotagreen minnctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008Co., 559 N.W.2d 411, 419 (Minn.1997) (“Typically, this court has defined the words ‘arising out of in an insurance policy to mean ‘causally connected with’ and not ‘proximately caused by.’ ”); Roloff v. Taste of Minn., 488 N.W.2d 325, 326 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 20, 1992) (stating that “arising out of’ language “unambiguously excludes coverage when a claim is causally related to” the conduct described in the exclusion clause — there assault and battery — even if the actual claim is for negligence); Ross v. City of Minneapolis, 408 N.W.2d 910, 912 (Minn.App.1987) (stating tha	1	1
Ross v. City of Minneapolisgreen minnctapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008Co., 559 N.W.2d 411, 419 (Minn.1997) (“Typically, this court has defined the words ‘arising out of in an insurance policy to mean ‘causally connected with’ and not ‘proximately caused by.’ ”); Roloff v. Taste of Minn., 488 N.W.2d 325, 326 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 20, 1992) (stating that “arising out of’ language “unambiguously excludes coverage when a claim is causally related to” the conduct described in the exclusion clause — there assault and battery — even if the actual claim is for negligence); Ross v. City of Minneapolis, 408 N.W.2d 910, 912 (Minn.App.1987) (stating tha	1	1
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Sipplegreen minn · 1977 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000We also held that the exclusion and its exception applied in Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Sipple, where the insured, a state highway department employee, assaulted a farmer during a heated debate over a new highway that was allegedly creating drainage problems for the farmer's land. 255 N.W.2d 373, 374 (Minn. 1977). 2000We also held that the exclusion and its exception applied in Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Sipple, where the insured, a state highway department employee, assaulted a farmer during a heated debate over a new highway that was allegedly creating drainage problems for the farmer’s land. 255 N.W.2d 373, 374 (Minn.1977).	1	1
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.green minn · 1995 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997Co., 533 N.W.2d 603, 611 (Minn.1995) (regarding applicability of an exclusion clause in an insurance contract); Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 583 (Minn.1988) (regarding assertion of a statute of limitations); Anderson v. First Nat’l Bank of Pine City, 303 Minn. 408, 411 , 228 N.W.2d 257, 259 (1975) (regarding ratification of a mortgage).	1	1
Thiele v. Stichgreen minn · 1988 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997Co., 533 N.W.2d 603, 611 (Minn.1995) (regarding applicability of an exclusion clause in an insurance contract); Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 583 (Minn.1988) (regarding assertion of a statute of limitations); Anderson v. First Nat’l Bank of Pine City, 303 Minn. 408, 411 , 228 N.W.2d 257, 259 (1975) (regarding ratification of a mortgage).	1	1
Anderson v. First Nat. Bank of Pine Citygreen minn · 1975 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997Co., 533 N.W.2d 603, 611 (Minn.1995) (regarding applicability of an exclusion clause in an insurance contract); Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 583 (Minn.1988) (regarding assertion of a statute of limitations); Anderson v. First Nat’l Bank of Pine City, 303 Minn. 408, 411 , 228 N.W.2d 257, 259 (1975) (regarding ratification of a mortgage). 1997Co., 533 N.W.2d 603, 611 (Minn.1995) (regarding applicability of an exclusion clause in an insurance contract); Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 583 (Minn.1988) (regarding assertion of a statute of limitations); Anderson v. First Nat’l Bank of Pine City, 303 Minn. 408, 411 , 228 N.W.2d 257, 259 (1975) (regarding ratification of a mortgage).	1	1
Pedersen v. United Services Automobile Ass'ngreen minnctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 1 sentence 1992See Flynn v. Sawyer, 272 N.W.2d 904, 907-08 (Minn.1978) (parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written agreement absent ambiguity or incompleteness); Pedersen v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 383 N.W.2d 427, 430 (Minn.App.1986) (extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to construe an insurance policy absent ambiguity in the policy language).	1	1
State v. Brechongreen minn · 1984 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745, 747-50 (Minn.1984). 1992See State v. Brechon, 352 N.W.2d 745, 747-50 (Minn.1984).	1	1
State v. Hayden Miller Co.green minn · 1962 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (32)

Case	Cited	Years
Holmes v. South Carolina green scotus · 2006 2 sentences 2013Put differently, the Constitution “prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote.” Id. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 . 2013Put differently, the Constitution “prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote.” Id. at 326 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 .	2	2011–2013
Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. green minn · 2009 1 sentence 2018Co. , 536 N.W.2d 305 , 314 (Minn. 1995) ("[O]nce the insurer shows the application of an exclusion clause, the burden of proof shifts back to the insured because the exception to the exclusion 'restores' coverage for which the insured bears the burden of proof."), overruled on other grounds by Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. , 766 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 2009).	1	2018–2018
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wolters green minn · 2013 2 sentences 2015Id. “[O]nce the insurer shows the application of an exclusion clause, the burden of proof shifts back to the insured because the exception to the exclusion restores coverage for which the insured bears the burden of proof.” Id. (alteration in original) (quotations omitted). 2015Id. “[O]nce the insurer shows the application of an exclusion clause, the burden of proof shifts back to the insured because the exception to the exclusion restores coverage for which the insured bears the burden of proof.” Id. (alteration in original) (quotations omitted).	1	2015–2015
Boedigheimer v. Taylor green minn · 1970 2 sentences 1995The exclusion clause provides: This insurance does not apply * * * to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any water course or body of water; but this exclusion does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and aecidental[.] 2 In an action to determine insurance coverage, once the insured has established a prima facie case of coverage 1995The exclusion clause provides: This insurance does not apply * * * to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any water course or body of water; but this exclusion does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and aecidental[.] 2 In an action to determine insurance coverage, once the insured has established a prima facie case of coverage	1	1995–1995
United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. green scotus · 1960 2 sentences 1993Id. at 584-85 , 80 S.Ct. at 1353-54 . 1993Id. at 584-85 , 80 S.Ct. at 1353-54 .	1	1993–1993
Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson green minn · 1989 1 sentence 1993Id. at 827 .	1	1993–1993
People v. Taylor green illappct · 1986 2 sentences 1987After twice refusing to hear cases in which the issue is whether the exclusion of defense witnesses merely for the failure to abide by a discovery rule impermissibly infringes upon an accused’s constitutional rights, Smith v. Jago, 470 U.S. 1060 , 105 S.Ct. 1777 , 84 L.Ed.2d 836 (1985) (White, Burger, and Brennan, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), and Taliaferro v. Maryland, 461 U.S. 948 , 103 S.Ct. 2114 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1983) (White, Brennan and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), the Court has granted certiorari in the case of S 1987After twice refusing to hear cases in which the issue is whether the exclusion of defense witnesses merely for the failure to abide by a discovery rule impermissibly infringes upon an accused’s constitutional rights, Smith v. Jago, 470 U.S. 1060 , 105 S.Ct. 1777 , 84 L.Ed.2d 836 (1985) (White, Burger, and Brennan, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), and Taliaferro v. Maryland, 461 U.S. 948 , 103 S.Ct. 2114 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1983) (White, Brennan and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), the Court has granted certiorari in the case of S	1	1987–1987
Taliaferro v. Maryland green scotus · 1983 1 sentence 1987After twice refusing to hear cases in which the issue is whether the exclusion of defense witnesses merely for the failure to abide by a discovery rule impermissibly infringes upon an accused’s constitutional rights, Smith v. Jago, 470 U.S. 1060 , 105 S.Ct. 1777 , 84 L.Ed.2d 836 (1985) (White, Burger, and Brennan, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), and Taliaferro v. Maryland, 461 U.S. 948 , 103 S.Ct. 2114 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1983) (White, Brennan and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), the Court has granted certiorari in the case of S	1	1987–1987
Stallworth v. Detroit Board of Education green scotus · 1983 1 sentence 1987After twice refusing to hear cases in which the issue is whether the exclusion of defense witnesses merely for the failure to abide by a discovery rule impermissibly infringes upon an accused’s constitutional rights, Smith v. Jago, 470 U.S. 1060 , 105 S.Ct. 1777 , 84 L.Ed.2d 836 (1985) (White, Burger, and Brennan, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), and Taliaferro v. Maryland, 461 U.S. 948 , 103 S.Ct. 2114 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1983) (White, Brennan and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), the Court has granted certiorari in the case of S	1	1987–1987
Welty v. United States green scotus · 1983 1 sentence 1987After twice refusing to hear cases in which the issue is whether the exclusion of defense witnesses merely for the failure to abide by a discovery rule impermissibly infringes upon an accused’s constitutional rights, Smith v. Jago, 470 U.S. 1060 , 105 S.Ct. 1777 , 84 L.Ed.2d 836 (1985) (White, Burger, and Brennan, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), and Taliaferro v. Maryland, 461 U.S. 948 , 103 S.Ct. 2114 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1983) (White, Brennan and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), the Court has granted certiorari in the case of S	1	1987–1987
United Telecommunications, Inc. v. Saffels green scotus · 1985 1 sentence 1987After twice refusing to hear cases in which the issue is whether the exclusion of defense witnesses merely for the failure to abide by a discovery rule impermissibly infringes upon an accused’s constitutional rights, Smith v. Jago, 470 U.S. 1060 , 105 S.Ct. 1777 , 84 L.Ed.2d 836 (1985) (White, Burger, and Brennan, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), and Taliaferro v. Maryland, 461 U.S. 948 , 103 S.Ct. 2114 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1983) (White, Brennan and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), the Court has granted certiorari in the case of S	1	1987–1987
Weiss v. York Hospital green scotus · 1985 1 sentence 1987After twice refusing to hear cases in which the issue is whether the exclusion of defense witnesses merely for the failure to abide by a discovery rule impermissibly infringes upon an accused’s constitutional rights, Smith v. Jago, 470 U.S. 1060 , 105 S.Ct. 1777 , 84 L.Ed.2d 836 (1985) (White, Burger, and Brennan, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), and Taliaferro v. Maryland, 461 U.S. 948 , 103 S.Ct. 2114 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1983) (White, Brennan and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), the Court has granted certiorari in the case of S	1	1987–1987
Smith v. Jago green scotus · 1985 1 sentence 1987After twice refusing to hear cases in which the issue is whether the exclusion of defense witnesses merely for the failure to abide by a discovery rule impermissibly infringes upon an accused’s constitutional rights, Smith v. Jago, 470 U.S. 1060 , 105 S.Ct. 1777 , 84 L.Ed.2d 836 (1985) (White, Burger, and Brennan, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), and Taliaferro v. Maryland, 461 U.S. 948 , 103 S.Ct. 2114 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1983) (White, Brennan and Blackmun, JJ., dissenting to the Court’s refusal to grant certiorari), the Court has granted certiorari in the case of S	1	1987–1987
Dunning v. Nebraska Health Care Ass'n green scotus · 1987 1 sentence 1987Taylor v. Illinois, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 947 , 93 L.Ed.2d 996 (1987).	1	1987–1987
Stettler v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Security neutral nj · 1978 1 sentence 1979In Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 155 N.J.Super. 474 , 382 A.2d 1152 (1977), certification granted, 75 N.J. 615 , 384 A.2d 845 (1978), the court was interpreting an exclusion with an exception which under the facts of the case was excluded by a later exclusion.	1	1979–1979
Gerson v. Jemison neutral nj · 1978 1 sentence 1979In Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 155 N.J.Super. 474 , 382 A.2d 1152 (1977), certification granted, 75 N.J. 615 , 384 A.2d 845 (1978), the court was interpreting an exclusion with an exception which under the facts of the case was excluded by a later exclusion.	1	1979–1979
Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc. green njsuperctappdiv · 1977 2 sentences 1979In Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 155 N.J.Super. 474 , 382 A.2d 1152 (1977), certification granted, 75 N.J. 615 , 384 A.2d 845 (1978), the court was interpreting an exclusion with an exception which under the facts of the case was excluded by a later exclusion. 1979In Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 155 N.J.Super. 474 , 382 A.2d 1152 (1977), certification granted, 75 N.J. 615 , 384 A.2d 845 (1978), the court was interpreting an exclusion with an exception which under the facts of the case was excluded by a later exclusion.	1	1979–1979
Pearson v. Johnson neutral minn · 1943	1	1976–1976
Standard Surety & Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. neutral nyappdiv · 1953	1	1966–1966
The Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation green minn · 1944	1	1951–1951
Industrial Commission v. Woodlawn Cemetery Ass'n green wis · 1939	1	1940–1940
Mannheimer Bros. v. Kansas Casualty & Surety Co. green minn · 1920	1	1938–1938
Engebretson v. Austvold green minn · 1937	1	1938–1938
Berry Chevrolet Co. v. Automobile Insurance Co. neutral minn · 1933	1	1938–1938
Humphrey v. Polski green minn · 1924	1	1938–1938
Wendt v. Wallace green minn · 1932	1	1938–1938
Messersmith v. . American Fidelity Co. green ny · 1921	1	1938–1938
Van Leet v. Kilmer green ny · 1930	1	1938–1938
Cooke v. Iverson green minn · 1909	1	1933–1933
Harbroe's Case green mass · 1916	1	1920–1920
State ex rel. Common School District No. 1 v. District Court of Itasca County green minn · 1918	1	1920–1920
Walther v. American Paper Co. neutral nj · 1916	1	1920–1920

Where else courts name it

CA 175 (1939–2026) TX 96 (1952–2025) IL 88 (1901–2024) LA 86 (1925–2017) NY 78 (1898–2024) PA 62 (1934–2024) MO 59 (1933–2025) NJ 50 (1957–2024) FL 49 (1955–2024) CT 48 (1894–2024) WI 45 (1937–2026) MI 36 (1949–2024) WA 36 (1931–2025) MD 32 (1939–2020) OH 32 (1924–2026) MS 31 (1954–2022) GA 31 (1910–2026) OR 30 (1943–2026) MA 27 (1954–2026) IN 26 (1976–2020) MN 26 (1920–2018) TN 25 (1917–2022) CO 24 (1942–2013) IA 23 (1912–2024) NM 23 (1960–2025) SC 22 (1937–2025) NC 21 (1951–2023) KS 19 (1962–2016) UT 16 (1937–2024) VA 16 (1935–2025) AZ 15 (1970–2023) AL 15 (1903–2015) OK 14 (1952–2011) AR 14 (1945–2025) DC 12 (1986–2026) WY 12 (1971–2025) NH 12 (1963–2023) MT 12 (1967–2023) WV 12 (1982–2023) KY 11 (1958–2025) ID 9 (1981–2014) DE 8 (1962–2024) HI 8 (1992–2021) NV 8 (1952–2014) RI 7 (1958–2007) ND 7 (1965–2020) AK 7 (1981–2007) NE 6 (1943–2015) ME 6 (1952–2019) VT 5 (1894–2012) PR 5 (1949–2023) SD 4 (1963–2012)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check