Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 72A. INSURANCE INDUSTRY TRADE PRACTICES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 72A.17 (2026)

Purpose Of Sections 72A.17 To 72A.32

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The purpose of sections 72A.17 to 72A.32 is to regulate trade practices in the business of insurance in accordance with the intent of Congress as expressed in the Act of Congress of March 9, 1945 (Public Law 15, 79th Congress), by defining, or providing for the determination of, all such practices in this state which constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices and by prohibiting the trade practices so defined or determined.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Morris v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 386 N.W.2d 233 (Minn. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morris v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 386 N.W.2d 233 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 3× “The purpose of the Act as stated in Minn.Stat. § 72A.17 (1984) is “to regulate trade practices in the business of insurance * * *.”
Elder v. Allstate Ins., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (D. Minnesota 2004). · cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 72A.17; see Morris v. Am. *1101 Family Mut.”
Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 702 N.W.2d 898 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Under the Unfair Claims Practices Act (UCPA), no person shall engage in this state in any trade practice which is defined in sections 72A.17 to 72A.32 as or determined pursuant to sections 72A.”
Morris v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 371 N.W.2d 620 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “Minn.Stat. § 72A.17 (1984) (purpose of sections 72A.”
O'Reilly v. Allstate Ins. Co., 474 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Finally, O’Reilly contends that Allstate’s failure to notify her of its intent to rely on the contractual limitation period as a bar to her claim violated Minn.Stat. §§ 72A.17 — .32 (Unfair Claims Practices Act).”
Glass Serv. Co. v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 603 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “" Minn.Stat. § 72A.17 (1998). Section 72A.201, subdivision 6(14), makes it an unfair trade practice by an insurer if the insurer fails "to assume all reasonable costs sufficient to pay the insured's chosen vendor for the repair or replacement of comparable window glass.”
In Re Workers' Comp. Ins. Antitrust Litig., 574 F. Supp. 525 (D. Minnesota 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 72A.17 (1982) states that: The purpose of sections 72A.”
LaBarre v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 11 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Minnesota 1998). · cites it 2× “If the defendants’ practices in dealing in insurance are wrongful, they are addressed in the DTPA.”
Hedback v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. (In Re Mathews), 203 B.R. 152 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1996). · cites it 2× “Because the Minnesota Unfair Claims Practices Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 72A.17 et seq., does not authorize a private cause of action, the Plaintiffs fourth cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”
Doe v. Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., 909 F. Supp. 668 (D. Minnesota 1995). “Affirmative answers to all three of the following questions would require a determination that the action is preempted: Are the challenged activities of Voyager the “business of insurance?” Has Minnesota enacted laws regulating the activities of Voyager which are being…”
Robert D. Jader v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., Formerly Known as Bankers Life, 975 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1992). “In Morris , the state supreme court held that a private party did not have a cause of action against his no-fault insurer under the Unfair Claims Procedures Act, Minn. Stat. § 72A.17. After noting that the language of the act did not provide for an express cause of action, the…”
Austin Prods. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Insurers' Rating Ass'n of Minnesota, 867 F.2d 1552 (8th Cir. 1989). “Laws, 188 (current codification at Minn.Stat. § 72A.17 (1988)). Prior to the passage of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the Minnesota legislature had made it compulsory for all employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance.”
Show all 15 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.