Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bobich v. Oja, 104 N.W.2d 19.

204 citing documents.

Benjamin Menier, a minor, by and through Robin Menier as parent and natural guardian, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Co., (), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Colby Lake Fourth Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Ridgewood Bay Resort, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Co., (-25 (Minn. 1960)), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Kawaljit S. Bhatia, as Trustee for the next of kin of Ena M. Bhatia, deceased, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co. , (citing Bobich v. Oja , ).
King’s Cove Marina, LLC, Minn. 2021
We construe an insurance policy, “if possible, so as to give effect to all provisions.”
Amanda Grace Visser, Minn. 2020
To support her argument, Visser cites the general proposition that “an insurer is governed by the contract they enter into.”
Shelley Lynn Yocom, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Because insurers draft insurance policies, any ambiguity is construed in favor of the insured, “but the court has no right to read an ambiguity into plain language of an insurance policy in order to construe it against the one who prepared the contract.” d 19, 24 (Minn. 1960).
Poehler v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 899 N.W.2d 135 Minn. 2017
Fischer Sand and Aggregate, LLP, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reviewing court must “give effect to the intention of the parties as it a ppears from the entire contract.” Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
Tim Johnson, Michael Johnson, Trustee for the Next of Kin of Karen Johnson v. Ironshore Indemnity, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Tim Johnson, Michael Johnson, Trustee for the Next of Kin of Karen Johnson v. Ironshore Indemnity, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Co., (quoting Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294, ).
Cheryl A. Hansen v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cheryl A. Hansen v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Persigehl v. Ridgebrook Investments Ltd. Partnership 858 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, (A14-0027), (A14-0123) v. Ridgebrook Investments … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
RAM Mutual Insurance Company v. EMC Property & Casualty Company, John Shriver as Trustee for the Next of … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
RAM Mutual Insurance Company v. EMC Property & Casualty Company, John Shriver as Trustee for the Next of … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Where there is no coverage by reason of an exclusionary clause, there is no obligation to defend.” Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 293
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2014
Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Granite Re, Inc. 844 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2014
See Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294 , (“Parties to ...
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
Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
See *617 Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294 , (stating that the extent of an insurer’s liability is governed by the insurance policy).
Quade v. Secura Insurance 814 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2012
Quade v. Secura Insurance 814 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2012
“Subject to the statutory law of the state, a policy of insurance is within the application of general principles of the law of contracts.” Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
Pepper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 813 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 2012
Pepper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 813 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 2012
(quoting Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 295 , -25 (1960)).
Latterell v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. 801 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2011
Latterell v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. 801 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2011
It is true that “[pjarties to insurance contracts, as in other contracts, absent legal prohibition or restriction, are free to contract as they see fit, and the extent of liability of an insurer is governed by the contract they enter into.” Bobich *922 v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
Star Windshield Repair, Inc. v. Western National Insurance Co. 768 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2009
Star Windshield Repair, Inc. v. Western National Insurance Co. 768 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2009
See Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
Bundul v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 753 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Bundul v. Travelers Indemnity Co. 753 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
Star Windshield Repair, Inc. v. Western National Insurance Co. 744 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Star Windshield Repair, Inc. v. Western National Insurance Co. 744 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
Wakefield Pork, Inc. v. Ram Mutual Insurance Co. 731 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Wakefield Pork, Inc. v. Ram Mutual Insurance Co. 731 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
But “[w]here there is no coverage by reason of an exclusionary clause, there is no obligation to defend.” Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 293
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 683 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2004
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co. 683 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2004
Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
Wanzek Construction, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau 679 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2004
Wanzek Construction, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau 679 N.W.2d 322 Minn. 2004
Co., (citing Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294 , ).
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 658 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2003
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 658 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2003
Generally speaking, insurance contracts, “like other contracts, must be construed according to the terms the parties have used, to be taken and understood, in the absence of ambiguity, in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense, so as to give effect to the intention of the parties as it appears from the entire contract.” Bo-bich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. 645 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. 645 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
When insurance policy language is clear and unambiguous, “the language used must be given its usual and accepted meaning.” Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294 , (citation omitted).
Thommes v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 641 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 2002
Thommes v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 641 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 2002
see Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294
Lynch v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 626 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 2001