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.
9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Board of Regents v. Royal Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2015See id.; see also Royal, 517 N.W.2d at 891 (“The reasonable expectation test is not a license to ignore the pollution exclusion in this case nor to rewrite the exclusion solely to conform to a result that the insured might prefer.”). 2013The reasonable expectation test is not a license to ignore the pollution exclusion in this case nor to rewrite the exclusion solely to conform to a result that the insured might prefer. 517 N.W.2d at 891 . | 1 | 2 |
Ross v. City of Minneapolisgreen2 sentences1999Furthermore, this court has refused to apply the reasonable expectation doctrine when an assault or battery exclusion was not hidden and was clearly marked and appeared under a capitalized heading entitled “ASSAULT OR BATTERY EXCLUSION #6.” Ross, 408 N.W.2d at 914 . 1999Furthermore, this court has refused to apply the reasonable expectation doctrine when an assault or battery exclusion was not hidden and was clearly marked and appeared under a capitalized heading entitled "ASSAULT OR BATTERY EXCLUSION # 6." Ross, 408 N.W.2d at 914 . | 1 | 2 |
SECURA Supreme Insurance Company v. MSMgreen1 sentence2012Thus, absent ambiguity in an insurance policy, “[o]nly in exceptional circumstances, when coverage is significantly different than what is reasonably expected and sufficient notice of this difference is lacking, should the reasonable-expectation doctrine apply.” SECURA 755 N.W.2d at 323 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc.green1 sentence2005See, e.g., Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., 431 So.2d at 978 (stating that "the pivotal issue is what is reasonably expected by the consumer in the food as served”); Jackson, 168 Ill.Dec. 147 , 589 N.E.2d at 548 ("The reasonable expectation test provides that * * * liability will lie for injuries caused by the substance where the consumer of the product would not reasonably have expected to find the substance in the product.”); Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1 , 423 S.E.2d 444, 451 (1992) (”[W]hen a substance in food causes injury to a consumer of the food, it is not | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Nestle-Beich, Inc.green2 sentences2005See, e.g., Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., 431 So.2d at 978 (stating that "the pivotal issue is what is reasonably expected by the consumer in the food as served”); Jackson, 168 Ill.Dec. 147 , 589 N.E.2d at 548 ("The reasonable expectation test provides that * * * liability will lie for injuries caused by the substance where the consumer of the product would not reasonably have expected to find the substance in the product.”); Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1 , 423 S.E.2d 444, 451 (1992) (”[W]hen a substance in food causes injury to a consumer of the food, it is not 2005See, e.g., Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., 431 So.2d at 978 (stating that "the pivotal issue is what is reasonably expected by the consumer in the food as served”); Jackson, 168 Ill.Dec. 147 , 589 N.E.2d at 548 ("The reasonable expectation test provides that * * * liability will lie for injuries caused by the substance where the consumer of the product would not reasonably have expected to find the substance in the product.”); Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1 , 423 S.E.2d 444, 451 (1992) (”[W]hen a substance in food causes injury to a consumer of the food, it is not | 1 | 1 |
Jim Dandy Fast Foods, Inc. v. Carpentergreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., 431 So.2d at 978 (stating that "the pivotal issue is what is reasonably expected by the consumer in the food as served”); Jackson, 168 Ill.Dec. 147 , 589 N.E.2d at 548 ("The reasonable expectation test provides that * * * liability will lie for injuries caused by the substance where the consumer of the product would not reasonably have expected to find the substance in the product.”); Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1 , 423 S.E.2d 444, 451 (1992) (”[W]hen a substance in food causes injury to a consumer of the food, it is not | 1 | 1 |
Betehia v. Cape Cod Corp.green2 sentences2005See Betehia, 103 N.W.2d at 69 . 2005Id. | 1 | 1 |
Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc.green2 sentences2005See, e.g., Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., 431 So.2d at 978 (stating that "the pivotal issue is what is reasonably expected by the consumer in the food as served”); Jackson, 168 Ill.Dec. 147 , 589 N.E.2d at 548 ("The reasonable expectation test provides that * * * liability will lie for injuries caused by the substance where the consumer of the product would not reasonably have expected to find the substance in the product.”); Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1 , 423 S.E.2d 444, 451 (1992) (”[W]hen a substance in food causes injury to a consumer of the food, it is not 2005See, e.g., Ex Parte Morrison's Cafeteria of Montgomery, Inc., 431 So.2d at 978 (stating that "the pivotal issue is what is reasonably expected by the consumer in the food as served”); Jackson, 168 Ill.Dec. 147 , 589 N.E.2d at 548 ("The reasonable expectation test provides that * * * liability will lie for injuries caused by the substance where the consumer of the product would not reasonably have expected to find the substance in the product.”); Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., 333 N.C. 1 , 423 S.E.2d 444, 451 (1992) (”[W]hen a substance in food causes injury to a consumer of the food, it is not | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carlson v. Allstate Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 49 . 2008Id. at 49 . | 2 | 2008–2009 |
Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1990We note the observation of the supreme court in Hubred that the doctrine of reasonable expectation “asks whether the insured’s expectation of coverage is reasonable given all the facts and circumstances,” id. at 311 , and conclude that application of that doctrine in this case would inappropriately extend it to matters beyond the scope intended in Atwater. 1990We note the observation of the supreme court in Hubred that the doctrine of reasonable expectation "asks whether the insured's expectation of coverage is reasonable given all the facts and circumstances," id. at 311 , and conclude that application of that doctrine in this case would inappropriately extend it to matters beyond the scope intended in Atwater. | 2 | 1985–1990 |
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.