Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Seavey Ex Rel. Ellis v. Erickson, 69 N.W.2d 889.

26 citing documents.

Born v. Medico Life Insurance Co. 428 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Born v. Medico Life Insurance Co. 428 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
However, “intent and consent may be inferred from conduct.” Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232, 236
Pierce v. MSI Insurance Co. 406 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pierce v. MSI Insurance Co. 406 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
To support this, appellants cite Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232
Kielkucki v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 402 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kielkucki v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 402 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The seminal Minnesota case on the question of waiver is Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232
Albany Roller Mills, Inc. v. Northern United Feeds & Seeds, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Albany Roller Mills, Inc. v. Northern United Feeds & Seeds, Inc. 397 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232, 241
Evans v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 257 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1977
Evans v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 257 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1977
3 Reliance is placed on Seavey v, Erickson, 244 Minn. 232
Pesina Ex Rel. Pesina v. Juarez 181 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1970
Pesina Ex Rel. Pesina v. Juarez 181 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1970
In support of its decision, the trial court incorporated in its order a memorandum which cites Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232 , 69 N. W. (2d) 889 ; Donarski v. Lardy, 251 Minn. 358 , 88 N. W. (2d) 7 ; and Western Cas.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Bierwerth 175 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Bierwerth 175 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
They contend that Paulus was entitled to rely upon this established custom and practice, citing in support of their contention Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232 , 69 N. W. (2d) 889 , 52 A. L. R. (2d) 1144.
FARM BUREAU MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. Stein 170 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1969
FARM BUREAU MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. Stein 170 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 1969
Appellants rely on Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232 , 69 N. W. (2d) 889 , 52 A. L. R. (2d) 1144.
Eichten v. Klein 160 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1968
Eichten v. Klein 160 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1968
The determinative issue presented is whether the evidence compels a finding that Milbank accepted the tender of payment as claimed and therefore, under Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232 , 69 N. W. (2d) 889 , as a matter of law waived its right to declare the policy lapsed or, as defendant further argues, is estopped from asserting that the policy had lapsed.
Oster v. Riley 150 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1967
Oster v. Riley 150 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1967
Co. v. D. A. Swanstrom Co. 203 Minn. 68 , ; Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232 , 69 N. W. (2d) 889 , 52 A. L. R. (2d) 1144.
Lievers v. National Insurance Underwriters 101 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 1960
Lievers v. National Insurance Underwriters 101 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 1960
On the authority of Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232 , 69 N. W. (2d) 889 , 52 A. L. R. (2d) 1144, the plaintiff argues that, where the subject of an insurance policy has been totally destroyed and the insurer accepts payments due for such insurance, the acceptance of the premium operates as a waiver of any prior forfeiture of the policy of insurance.
Alsleben v. Oliver Corporation 94 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1959
Alsleben v. Oliver Corporation 94 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1959
10 Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232 , 69 N. W. (2d) 889 , 52 A. L. R. (2d) 1144; 92 C. J. S., Waiver, p. 1043.
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
28 See, Seavey v. Erickson, 244 Minn. 232 , 69 N. W. (2d) 889 , 52 A. L. R. (2d) 1144, and Vorlicky v. Metropolitan Life Ins.