Cited by

See also Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308

1 Weum v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn. 237 Minn. 89 , Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , Gray v. Zurich Ins.

& Surety Co. v. Bros, 226 Minn. 466 , 33 N. W. (2d) 46 ; Trandum v. Trandum, 187 Minn. 327 , ; Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L. R. A. (N.S.)

Insurance touches the home, the family, and the occupation or the business of almost every person in the United States.” In Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308, 311 , , 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 184, Mr. Justice Holt had the following to say with respect to insurance: “* * * xhe object and purpose of the contracting parties is not to be lost sight of in construing a contract [of insurance], nor is the rule that in case of ambiguity it must be resolved against the one who prepared th

1 Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L.R.A.(N.S.)

This right was first recognized by this court in Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L.R.A.

Mercury relies upon a well-established line of Minnesota cases including Nikkari v. Jackson, 226 Minn. 393 , 33 N. W. (2d) 36 ; Oehme v. Johnson, 181 Minn. 138 , , 81 A. L. R. 1308; Peterson v. Maloney, 181 Minn. 437 , ; and Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Cf. Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308, 312 , , 48 L.R.A.(N.S.)

We are of the opinion that this case is governed by the rule first expressed in Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L.R.A.(N.S.)

the driver, the insurer was estopped thereafter to deny liability”; that is, “if the company [the insurer] voluntarily assumed the defense, knowing that it was not obligated to do so, an element of estoppel or waiver was shown.” *323 To the same effect are the following earlier Minnesota cases: Tozer v. Ocean A. & G. Corp. Ltd. 94 Minn. 478 , ; Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , ; Mann v. Employers L. Assur.

Cf. Melin v. Stuart, 119 Minn. 539 , .

Nash v. Gale, 2 Minn. 265 (310); McLean v. Sworts, 69 Minn. 128 , , 65 A. S. R. 556; Melin v. Stuart, 119 Minn. 539 , ; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

(2 ed. & Supp.) § 4659; Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L.R.A.

Our own cases of Tozer v. Ocean A. & G. Corp. Ltd. 94 Minn. 478 , ; Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L.R.A.

The court said [ 94 Minn. 484 ] : “While it may be that the acts of appellant were not such as to constitute a waiver, strictly speaking, yet there ivas at least an election of positions; and, having pursued a course of action consistent with its liability, such conduct ripened into an equitable estoppel.” In Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L.R.A.(N.S.)

The case of Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 184, has no application.

He claims to bring his case within Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 184, and Standard Printing Co. v. Fidelity & D. Co. of Md.

Although this provision in this policy differs somewhat from the provision considered in Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. *311 308 , , 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 184, we are of opinion that it,is substantially the same in effect, and falls within the rule announced in that case and subsequently applied in Mahr v. Maryland Casualty Co. 132 Minn. 336 , , and Standard Printing Co. t. Fidelity & Deposit Co. 138 Minn. 304 , , t

Under the rule laid down in Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L.R.A.

It was held in Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , 48 L.R.A.

ertaking to defend, in assured’s name and behalf, suits brought against it for recoveries contemplated by the policy, payment of costs, and provided no.'action should lie against the assurer for any loss thereunder, unless brought by assured for loss actually sustained after payment thereof by it in money, all substantially as set out in the policy considered in Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , .

We do not regard the case of Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , , as committing us to the doctrine that a trial is a condition precedent to recovery when the insurer refuses to defend, contrary to its agreement.