Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 61A.11 (2026)

Misstatement, When Not To Invalidate Policy

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any claim upon a policy issued in this state without previous medical examination, or without the knowledge or consent of the insured, or, in case of a minor, without the consent of a parent, guardian, or other person having legal custody, the statements made in the application as to the age, physical condition, and family history of the insured shall be valid and binding upon the company, unless willfully false or intentionally misleading.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1985–2018 · leading case: Jacky L. Larson v. The Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., CMInformation Specialists, Inc., 855 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jacky L. Larson v. The Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., CMInformation Specialists, Inc., 855 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. 2014). · cites it 18× “This dispute over the rescission of a life insurance policy presents two questions of statutory interpretation: (1) whether Minn.Stat. § 61A.11 (2012) requires subjective intent to deceive on the part of the insured in order to rescind a life insurance policy issued without a…”

Berthiaume v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 388 N.W.2d 15 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 16× “resentations in insurance policies like the one issued by Minnesota Mutual, and the applicable life insurance provision provides as follows: In any claim upon a policy issued in this state without previous medical examination, or without the knowledge or consent of the insured,…”

Useldinger v. Old Repub. Life Ins. Co., 377 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 12× “This is an appeal from an April 4, 1985 judgment granting respondent insurance company's motion for summary judgment based on Minn.Stat. § 61A.11 (1984). This statute allows an insurer to rescind a non-medical examination life insurance policy when an insured wilfully…”

Peggy A. Lebus v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 1374 (8th Cir. 1995). · cites it 3× “) Minnesota law allows an insurance company to void an insurance contract if the policy was issued on the basis of statements about the insured’s medical condition that were wilfully false or intentionally misleading, as those terms are used in Minn.Stat. § 61A.11. See Ellis v.…”

Mary G. Yang v. Farmers New World Life Ins., 898 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “11 applies here as a matter of law: Farmers asserts that it examined Yang in conjunction with issuing her policy, and a factfinder could reasonably infer that if she misstated her birth year by a full decade on an application for insurance that she was otherwise ineligible for,…”

Hammer v. Investors Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 511 N.W.2d 6 (Minn. 1994). · cites it 2× “The record quite clearly demonstrates that the applicant’s response to the question most critical to the issuance of a nonsmoker’s life insurance policy was at best, inaccurate, or at worst, willfully false or intentionally misleading.”

PHL Variable Ins. v. 2008 Christa Joseph Irrevocable Trust Ex Rel. BNC Nat'l Bank, 782 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “9 (excepting life insurance from section addressing insurance applicant’s misrepresentations); Minn.Stat. § 61A.11 (covering life-insurance policy misstatements relating only to “age, physical condi *980 tion, and family history”).”

Ser Yang v. W.-S. Life Assurance Co., 713 F.3d 429 (8th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 61A.11. “[T]he phrase ‘wilfully false or intentionally misleading’ as used in Minn.”

PHL Variable Ins. v. 2008 Christa Joseph Irrevocable Trust, 970 F. Supp. 2d 932 (D. Minnesota 2013). · cites it 4× “6 See Minn.Stat. § 61A.11. PHL’s right to rescind the policy on the basis of material representations is therefore governed by common rather than statutory law.”

Ellis v. Great-West Life Assurance Co., 43 F.3d 382 (8th Cir. 1994). · cites it 5× “The district court applied Minn.Stat. § 61A.11 which provides: In any claim upon a policy issued in this state without previous medical examination .”

Veal v. Vets. Life Ins. Co., 767 S.W.2d 892 (Tex. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “the statements made in the application as to the age, physical condition, and family history of the insured shall be valid and binding upon the company unless willfully false or intentionally misleading.”

Lewis v. Paul Revere Life Ins., 80 F. Supp. 2d 978 (E.D. Wis. 2000). “1990), but this case simply applies Minn. Stat. § 61A.11 (1988), which held that where life insurance is issued without a medical examination, the proposed insured’s statements on the insurance application void coverage only if they were wilfully false or intentionally…”

Show all 14 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.