Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Bachrachgreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y v. Bachrach , 265 Minn. 83 , 120 N.W.2d 327 , 333 (1963) (explaining that "the right of the [insurer] to restitution hinges on the fact that it has made a payment which it was not obligated to pay by its contract"). 2019See, e.g., Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y v. Bachrach , 265 Minn. 83 , 120 N.W.2d 327 , 333 (1963) (explaining that "the right of the [insurer] to restitution hinges on the fact that it has made a payment which it was not obligated to pay by its contract"). | 1 | 1 |
Arndt v. American Family Insurance Co.green1 sentence2010See id. | 1 | 1 |
Iowa National Mutual Insurance v. Universal Underwriters Insurancegreen1 sentence2006Co., 276 Minn, at 367-68, 150 N.W.2d at 236-37 ([Ioiva National rule). 15 In contrast with the Iowa National rule that bars recovery of defense costs by an insurer that provides a defense to its insured, when no insurer undertakes the defense of an insured, the insured may recover its defense costs from any of its insurers, and “the insurers, as between them, shall be equally liable for the insured’s defense costs.” Jostens, 387 N.W.2d at 167 . | 1 | 1 |
Great Divide Insurance Co. v. Carpenter Ex Rel. Reedgreen1 sentence2004Co. v. Carpenter, 79 P.3d 599, 609-10 (Alaska 2003) (holding that a settlement agreement by the insured with the tortfeasor without the consent of the insurer did not relieve the insurer of its obligations under a commercial general liability policy even where the insurer had provided a defense but materially breached the policy by unreasonably refusing to consent to the settlement). | 1 | 1 |
Schaedler v. New York Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2000Co., 201 Minn. 327, 333 , 276 N.W. 235, 239 (1937) (stating that an incontestability clause permits the insurer a defense for false statements made in a policy but “[n]o oral or written misrepresentation made by the assured * * * in the negotiation of insurance, shall * * * defeat or avoid the policy, or prevent its attaching, unless made with intent to deceive and defraud”). 2000Co., 201 Minn. 327, 333 , 276 N.W. 235, 239 (1937) (stating that an incontestability clause permits the insurer a defense for false statements made in a policy but “[n]o oral or written misrepresentation made by the assured * * * in the negotiation of insurance, shall * * * defeat or avoid the policy, or prevent its attaching, unless made with intent to deceive and defraud”). | 1 | 1 |
Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurancegreen2 sentences1994Co., 309 Minn. 14, 18 , 242 N.W.2d 840, 843 (1976) (stating that “while *585 the insurer must as a rule defend any suit which alleges a claim within coverage, if the insurer has knowledge from facts dehors the complaint that the acts giving rise to the suit are outside the coverage of the policy, there is no duty to defend”). 1994Co., 309 Minn. 14, 18 , 242 N.W.2d 840, 843 (1976) (stating that “while *585 the insurer must as a rule defend any suit which alleges a claim within coverage, if the insurer has knowledge from facts dehors the complaint that the acts giving rise to the suit are outside the coverage of the policy, there is no duty to defend”). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Aid Ins. Co. of Des Moines, Ia.green1 sentence1990Co., 287 N.W.2d 663, 665 (Minn.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota-Iowa Television Co. v. Watonwan T v. Improvement Ass'ngreen1 sentence1986Many courts, in holding that their state’s unfair claims practices act does not create a private cause of action, have emphasized the drastic change in the common law such a cause of action would produce. 8 Min *238 nesota also recognizes that “statutes are presumed not to alter or modify the common law unless they expressly so provide.” Agassiz & Odessa Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Magnusson, 272 Minn. 156, 166 , 136 N.W.2d 861, 868 (1965); see also Minnesota-Iowa Television Co., 294 N.W.2d at 311 (“[I]f the legislature had intended to overrule the line of cases prohibiting punitive damages i | 1 | 1 |
Agassiz & Odessa Mutual Fire Insurance v. Magnussongreen2 sentences1986Many courts, in holding that their state’s unfair claims practices act does not create a private cause of action, have emphasized the drastic change in the common law such a cause of action would produce. 8 Min *238 nesota also recognizes that “statutes are presumed not to alter or modify the common law unless they expressly so provide.” Agassiz & Odessa Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Magnusson, 272 Minn. 156, 166 , 136 N.W.2d 861, 868 (1965); see also Minnesota-Iowa Television Co., 294 N.W.2d at 311 (“[I]f the legislature had intended to overrule the line of cases prohibiting punitive damages i 1986Many courts, in holding that their state’s unfair claims practices act does not create a private cause of action, have emphasized the drastic change in the common law such a cause of action would produce. 8 Min *238 nesota also recognizes that “statutes are presumed not to alter or modify the common law unless they expressly so provide.” Agassiz & Odessa Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Magnusson, 272 Minn. 156, 166 , 136 N.W.2d 861, 868 (1965); see also Minnesota-Iowa Television Co., 294 N.W.2d at 311 (“[I]f the legislature had intended to overrule the line of cases prohibiting punitive damages i | 1 | 1 |
Citizens State Bank v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.green2 sentences1976Co. 177 Minn. 65, 70 , 224 N. W. 451, 453 (1929). 1976Co. 177 Minn. 65, 70 , 224 N. W. 451, 453 (1929). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 406-07 . 2002Franklin, 574 N.W.2d at 406-07 . *308 Conversely, to establish a duty to indemnify, the insured must prove that all claims alleged in the complaint fall within the policy coverage. | 2 | 2002–2005 |
Brown v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters
green
2 sentences1994Id. 1989Id. | 2 | 1989–1994 |
Jostens, Inc. v. Mission Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2006Co., 276 Minn, at 367-68, 150 N.W.2d at 236-37 ([Ioiva National rule). 15 In contrast with the Iowa National rule that bars recovery of defense costs by an insurer that provides a defense to its insured, when no insurer undertakes the defense of an insured, the insured may recover its defense costs from any of its insurers, and “the insurers, as between them, shall be equally liable for the insured’s defense costs.” Jostens, 387 N.W.2d at 167 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Morris v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2005Morris, 386 N.W.2d at 238 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Cincinnati Companies v. West American Insurance
green
2 sentences2003Cincinnati Cos., 233 Ill.Dec. 649 , 701 N.E.2d at 505 ; Toume Realty, 548 N.W.2d at 67 . 2003Cincinnati Cos., 233 Ill.Dec. 649 , 701 N.E.2d at 505 ; Toume Realty, 548 N.W.2d at 67 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Towne Realty, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance
green
1 sentence2003Cincinnati Cos., 233 Ill.Dec. 649 , 701 N.E.2d at 505 ; Toume Realty, 548 N.W.2d at 67 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Margaretten & Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Morrison v. Swenson
green
2 sentences1991Morrison v. Swenson, 274 Minn. 127 , 142 N.W.2d 640 (1966). 1991Morrison v. Swenson, 274 Minn. 127 , 142 N.W.2d 640 (1966). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Washburn v. Van Steenwyk
green
1 sentence1986Many courts, in holding that their state’s unfair claims practices act does not create a private cause of action, have emphasized the drastic change in the common law such a cause of action would produce. 8 Min *238 nesota also recognizes that “statutes are presumed not to alter or modify the common law unless they expressly so provide.” Agassiz & Odessa Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Magnusson, 272 Minn. 156, 166 , 136 N.W.2d 861, 868 (1965); see also Minnesota-Iowa Television Co., 294 N.W.2d at 311 (“[I]f the legislature had intended to overrule the line of cases prohibiting punitive damages i | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Prahm v. Rupp Construction Co.
green
1 sentence1980Prahm v. Rupp Construction Co., 277 N.W.2d 389 (Minn.1979). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
F. D. Chapman Construction Co. v. Glens Falls Insurance
green
2 sentences1976Co. 297 Minn. 406 , 211 N. W. 2d 871 (1973).” Thus while the insurer must as a rule defend any suit which alleges a claim within coverage, if the insurer has knowledge from facts dehors the complaint that the acts giving rise to the suit are outside the coverage of the policy, there is no duty to defend. 2 A bankers fidelity bond is intended to protect a bank from losses sustained as a result of dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal acts on the part of its employees. 3 It is broad enough “to cover *19 loss by dishonest or fraudulent acts and conduct of the employe whereby the employer is rendered 1976Co. 297 Minn. 406 , 211 N. W. 2d 871 (1973).” Thus while the insurer must as a rule defend any suit which alleges a claim within coverage, if the insurer has knowledge from facts dehors the complaint that the acts giving rise to the suit are outside the coverage of the policy, there is no duty to defend. 2 A bankers fidelity bond is intended to protect a bank from losses sustained as a result of dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal acts on the part of its employees. 3 It is broad enough “to cover *19 loss by dishonest or fraudulent acts and conduct of the employe whereby the employer is rendered | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1976Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), established the notice requirement. [8] Most automobile insurance policies, including, apparently, the one here, contain a clause which requires the insured to cooperate with the insurer in the defense of any claim. 1976Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), established the notice requirement. [8] Most automobile insurance policies, including, apparently, the one here, contain a clause which requires the insured to cooperate with the insurer in the defense of any claim. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Simpson v. Loehmann
green
2 sentences1976Simpson v. Loehmann, 21 N.Y.2d 305 , 287 N.Y.S.2d 633 , 234 N.E.2d 669 (1967). 1976Simpson v. Loehmann, 21 N.Y.2d 305 , 287 N.Y.S.2d 633 , 234 N.E.2d 669 (1967). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.