Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Weum v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n, 54 N.W.2d 20.

26 citing documents.

Olson v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield 269 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1978
Olson v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield 269 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1978
An insurance policy is to be construed liberally in favor of the insured, Weum v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn., 237 Minn. 89
Laidlaw v. Commercial Insurance Co. of Newark 255 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1977
Laidlaw v. Commercial Insurance Co. of Newark 255 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1977
Blazek v. North American Life & Casualty Co., supra; Weum v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn., 237 Minn. 89
Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Wagner 207 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1973
Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Wagner 207 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1973
1 Weum v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn. 237 Minn. 89 , Patterson v. Adan, 119 Minn. 308 , Gray v. Zurich Ins.
Orren v. Phoenix Insurance Company 179 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1970
Fawcett House, Inc. v. Great Central Insurance Co. 159 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1968
Fawcett House, Inc. v. Great Central Insurance Co. 159 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1968
Assn. 237 Minn. 89 , 54 N. W. (2d) 20 .
MacRUNNEL v. NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY 153 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1967
MacRUNNEL v. NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY 153 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1967
Assn. 237 Minn. 89 , 54 N. W. (2d) 20 ; Allied Mutual Cas.
Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd. 153 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1967
Marso v. Mankato Clinic, Ltd. 153 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1967
Assn. 237 Minn. 89, 104 , 54 N. W. (2d) 20, 29 , Mr. Justice Magney, speaking for this court, said: “Where one of the parties draws a contract and the other must accept or reject but cannot vary the terms, the burden is upon the party drawing the contract to make the meaning plain.
Gabrelcik v. National Indemnity Co. 131 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1964
Struble v. Occidental Life Insurance 120 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1963
Struble v. Occidental Life Insurance 120 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 1963
Assn. 237 Minn. 89 , 54 N. W. (2d) 20 , which is a helpful authority because it expresses the principles of law this court has followed in the construction of health and accident insurance policies.
Allied Mutual Casualty Co. v. Askerud 94 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1959
Allied Mutual Casualty Co. v. Askerud 94 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1959
Assn. 237 Minn. 89, 105 , 54 N. W. (2d) 20, 29 , we held: “* * * In resolving doubts as to the meaning to be given the terms of an insurance contract, this court will note the purposes for seeking insurance and will avoid an interpretation which would forfeit rights which the insured may have believed he was securing, but which, because
Donarski v. Lardy 88 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1958
Donarski v. Lardy 88 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1958
Assn. 237 Minn. 89 , 54 N. W. (2d) 20 , for the proposition that this court would consider the purposes for seeking insurance and would avoid an interpretation which would forfeit rights which the insured may have believed he was securing but which, because of the failure to use clear language, were cast in doubt.
Blazek v. North American Life & Casualty Co. 87 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1957
Blazek v. North American Life & Casualty Co. 87 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1957
Assn. 237 Minn. 89 , 54 N. W. (2d) 20 ; Lorentz v. Aetna Life Ins.
Siemers v. United Benefit Life Insurance 75 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1956
Siemers v. United Benefit Life Insurance 75 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1956
Assn. 237 Minn. 89 , 54 N. W. (2d) 20 ; Freyberg v. London & Scottish Assur.
Freyberg v. London & Scottish Assurance Corp. 75 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1956
Freyberg v. London & Scottish Assurance Corp. 75 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1956
Assn. 237 Minn. 89 , 54 N. W. (2d) 20 , the rule which we believe to be controlling on the facts of this case.