Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wyatt v. Wyatt, 58 N.W.2d 873.

31 citing documents.

Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners’ Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Innovations, d at 705 (quoting Wyatt v. Wyatt , ).
Commerce Bank v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, [AMENDED] Minn. 2015
Commerce Bank v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, [AMENDED] Minn. 2015
" Eng 'g & Const. Innovations, (quoting Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434,437, ).
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
if the contract is susceptible of another construction which gives effect to all its provisions and is consistent with the general intent.” Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434, 437
Witcher Construction Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 550 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Witcher Construction Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 550 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434, 438 , (finding no conflict with an endorsement and applying the pokey’s exclusion).
Continental Casualty Insurance Co. v. Teachers Insurance Co. 532 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Continental Casualty Insurance Co. v. Teachers Insurance Co. 532 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434, 437 , (“A construction of an insurance policy which entirely neutralizes one provision should not be adopted if the contract is susceptible of another construction.”).
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Johannessen 516 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Johannessen 516 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Moreover, Decker’s interpretation of the policy 4 entirely negates the policy’s separate definitions and treatment of “farm employees” and “domestic employees.” An interpretation which “entirely neutralizes one provision should not be adopted if the contract is susceptible of another construction which gives effect to all its provisions and is consistent with the general intent.” Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434, 437
Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Caswell 490 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Caswell 490 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434, 436
West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Armstrong 419 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Armstrong 419 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434, 437
Benton County Agricultural Society v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. 372 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Benton County Agricultural Society v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. 372 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
*386 The supreme court has also consistently-held that “where provisions in the body of the policy conflict with an endorsement, the provision of the endorsement governs.” Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Implement Dealers Insurance Co., 294 Minn. 236, 245 , see Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Independent School District No. 656, Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434, 437-38 , -76 (1953).
Crews v. Criterion Insurance Co. 370 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Crews v. Criterion Insurance Co. 370 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In denying Crews’ claim, the trial court followed Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434 , in which the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a similar “care, custody or control” exclusion in a liability policy was valid.
Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Independent School District No. 656 355 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Independent School District No. 656 355 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
“[Wjhere provisions in the body of the policy conflict with an endorsement, the provision of the endorsement governs.” Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Implement Dealers Insurance Co., 294 Minn. 236, 245 , see also Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434, 437-38 , -76 (1953) (no conflict between body of policy and endorsement and coverage excluded).
Lener v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 263 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1978
Lener v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 263 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1978
Wyatt v. Wyatt (1953), 239 Minn. 434 , .” Also, “[i]n construing a particular provision in a[n] [insurance] policy, * * * the entire policy, should be considered in order that the true intent may be ascertained.” Tischendorf v. Lynn Mutual Fire Ins.
LeDoux v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co. 262 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1978
LeDoux v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co. 262 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1978
In Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434 , we held that stated exclusions in an endorsement cannot be used to enlarge the coverage of the policy.
Torbert v. Anderson 222 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1974
Torbert v. Anderson 222 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1974
Co. v. Eagles Lodge, 282 Minn. 477, 480 , Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434, 437
Dairyland Insurance v. Implement Dealers Insurance 199 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1972
Dairyland Insurance v. Implement Dealers Insurance 199 N.W.2d 806 Minn. 1972
Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434 , Bobich v. Oja, supra.
Bobich v. Oja 104 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1960
Bobich v. Oja 104 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1960
10 Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434 , 58 N. W. (2d) 873 .