Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 58 N.W.2d 855.

55 citing documents.

Johnson v. American Economy Insurance Co. 419 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Johnson v. American Economy Insurance Co. 419 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Minnesota, the first two Pampe-rin factors are generally satisfied by a finding that the person seeking coverage and the named insured “dwell together as a family under the same roof.” See Viktora, d at 707 (citing Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 387, 392 , ); Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250
Krause Ex Relo. Krause v. Mutual Service Casualty Co. 399 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krause Ex Relo. Krause v. Mutual Service Casualty Co. 399 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
at 707 (citing Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual, 303 Minn. 387, 392 , Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , ).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Johnson 729 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Skarsten v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Skarsten v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In excluding members of the same household from coverage, the purpose is to “exempt the insurer from liability to those persons to whom the insured, on account of close family ties, would be apt to be partial in case of injury.” Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250, 263
Houser ex rel. Houser v. Dan Dugan Transport Co. 361 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1985
Houser ex rel. Houser v. Dan Dugan Transport Co. 361 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1985
See Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 387 , Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , Firemen’s
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. McPhee 336 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1983
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. McPhee 336 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1983
The trial court cited Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , and Bartholet v. Berkness, 291 Minn. 123 , in support of its decision that, because Linda was no longer a member of the household, Linda was not an “insured” under the policy.
Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark v. Viktora 318 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1982
Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark v. Viktora 318 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1982
court has generally encompassed the first two Pamperin factors by defining “household” in its common and ordinary meaning “for insurance purposes as generally synonymous with ‘family’ and as including those who dwell together as a family under the same roof.” Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 387, 392 , Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250
Pederson v. All Nation Insurance Co. 294 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1980
Pederson v. All Nation Insurance Co. 294 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1980
809, 810 (1937), we held that the word “household” is synonymous with “family” but broader, including servants or attendants, “all who are under one domestic head; persons who dwell together as a family.” See also Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , Simon v. Milwaukee Automobile Mutual Ins.
Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 227 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1975
Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 227 N.W.2d 807 Minn. 1975
Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , Bartholet v. Berkness, 291 Minn. 123
Bartholet v. Berkness 189 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
Bartholet v. Berkness 189 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
Co. 262 Minn. 378 , 115 N. W. (2d) 40 ; Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108; 7 Am.
Orren v. Phoenix Insurance Company 179 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1970
Orren v. Phoenix Insurance Company 179 N.W.2d 166 Minn. 1970
Where, however, the language is susceptible of two meanings, every reasonable doubt as to the meaning must be resolved against the insurer who has chosen the language and in favor of the insured, Tomly *229 anovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108, avoiding “an interpretation which would forfeit rights which the insured may have believed he was securing.” Weum v. Mutual Benefit Health & Acc.
Boedigheimer v. Taylor 178 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1970
Boedigheimer v. Taylor 178 N.W.2d 610 Minn. 1970
Co. 231 Minn. 469 , 43 N. W. (2d) 807 ; Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 ; Gabrelcik v. National Ind.
Fuchs v. Cheeley 173 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1969
Fuchs v. Cheeley 173 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 1969
Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108; Motor Vehicle Cas.
Minners v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 170 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1969
Minners v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 170 N.W.2d 223 Minn. 1969
The purpose of the exclusion was articulated in Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250, 263 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855, 862 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108, thus: “* * * The obvious purpose of the clause here involved is to exempt the insurer from liability to those persons to whom the *348 insured, on account of close family ties, would be apt to be partial in case of injury.” More recently we dealt with the same ques
Gareis v. Benefit Ass'n of Railway Emp. Ins. Co. 169 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1969
Gareis v. Benefit Ass'n of Railway Emp. Ins. Co. 169 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1969
3 See, LeRoux v. Edmundson, 276 Minn. 120 , 148 N. W. (2d) 812 ; Greenlee v. Drees, 274 Minn. 538 , 144 N. W. (2d) 774 ; Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108.
LeRoux v. Edmundson 148 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1967
LeRoux v. Edmundson 148 N.W.2d 812 Minn. 1967
There is no need for us to go into these variant meanings as that was done exhaustively in Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108.
Greenlee v. Drees 144 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1966
Greenlee v. Drees 144 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1966
Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108; Stephanie v. Consumers Mutual Ins.
Fruchtman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 142 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1966
Fruchtman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 142 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1966
1 “The obvious purpose of the clause here involved is to exempt the insurer from liability to those persons to whom the insured, on account of close family ties, would be apt to be partial in case of injury.” Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250, 263 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855, 862 , 50 A. L. R. 108, 117.
Swedeen v. Swedeen 134 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1965
Swedeen v. Swedeen 134 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1965
Co. (8 Cir.) 171 F. (2d) 460; Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108; Engebretson v. Austvold, 199 Minn. 399 , ; Pearson v. Johnson, 215 Minn. 480 , 10 N. W. (2d) 357 ; Lang v. General Ins.
Hammer v. Malkerson Motors, Inc. 132 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1964
Followed Hammer v. Malkerson Motors, Inc. 132 N.W.2d 174 Minn. 1964
Many of the rules that we follow in interpreting insurance contracts are to be found in Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108; Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287 , 104 N. W. (2d) 19 ; and many other decisions of this court.
Gabrelcik v. National Indemnity Co. 131 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1964
Gabrelcik v. National Indemnity Co. 131 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 1964
Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108; Phil G. Ruvelson, Inc. v. St.
Lowry v. Kneeland 117 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1962
Lowry v. Kneeland 117 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1962
Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108; White v. Gifis (D. Minn.) 172 F. Supp. 296 ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
Simon v. Milwaukee Automobile Mutual Insurance 115 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1962
Simon v. Milwaukee Automobile Mutual Insurance 115 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1962
Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108.
Bobich v. Oja 104 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1960
Bobich v. Oja 104 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1960
5 Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108; Motor Vehicle Cas.
Juvland v. Plaisance 96 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1959
Juvland v. Plaisance 96 N.W.2d 537 Minn. 1959
252 Minn. 247 , 90 N. W. (2d) 86 ; Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , 58 N. W. (2d) 855 , 50 A. L. R. (2d) 108; Johnson v. Johnson, 228 Minn. 282 , 37 N. W. (2d) 1 .
Annis v. Annis 84 N.W.2d 256 Minn. 1957