Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 178 N.W.2d 610.

46 citing documents.

King’s Cove Marina, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The supreme court gave plaintiff judgment creditors the burden to prove allocation because “the burden of proof rests upon the party claiming coverage under an insurance policy.” King’s Cove II, d at 325 ().
Tyler Rentfrow, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Boedigheimer v. Taylor , (“ It is axiomatic that the burden of proof rests upon the party claiming coverage under an insurance policy.”).
Kawaljit S. Bhatia, as Trustee for the next of kin of Ena M. Bhatia, deceased, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
King’s Cove Marina, LLC, Minn. 2021
Placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff judgment creditor is consistent with the general rule that “the burden of proof rests upon the party claiming coverage under an insurance policy,” as well as the more specific rule that the plaintiff judgment creditor bear s the burden of establishing the reasonableness of a Miller-Shugart settlement agreement, Miller, d at 735–36.
Bernadette L. Russell, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
’” Lhotka, d at 774 (quoting Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 327, ).
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
It is well-established “that the burden of proof rests upon the party claiming coverage under an insurance policy.” Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 329 , accord Travelers Indem.
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
Id.; Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 329
Thommes v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 641 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 2002
Thommes v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 641 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 2002
Cf. Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 327 , (stating that there is no need to define or interpret clear and unambiguous language in an insurance contract).
Progressive Specialty Insurance Co. v. Widness Ex Rel. Widness 613 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Distinguished Progressive Specialty Insurance Co. v. Widness Ex Rel. Widness 613 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
It asserts that coverage of non-owned vehicles “is inserted in automobile liability insurance as a convenience to the insured” and may be restricted “to prevent the insured from driving any number of additional automobiles and claiming coverage for all of them.” Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 329
St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. Dahlberg, Inc. 596 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. Dahlberg, Inc. 596 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 329 , (noting burden of proving existence of coverage rests with insured); Couch, supra, § 51:35, at 444 (recognizing duty to defend is contractual); see also Aerojet, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 118 , 948 P.2d at 921 (stating insurers do not contract to pay defense costs for claims clearly outside cove
Lhotka v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 572 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Lhotka v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 572 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Neither the policy, nor Minnesota statutes, defines “hit-and-run.” Courts should, however, apply the ordinary meaning of terms not defined in an insurance policy, “as well as the interpretations adopted in prior cases.” Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 327
Kabanuk Diversified Investments, Inc. v. Credit General Insurance Co. 553 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Kabanuk Diversified Investments, Inc. v. Credit General Insurance Co. 553 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 329
Milbank Insurance Co. v. Johnson 544 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Milbank Insurance Co. v. Johnson 544 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The words, therefore, are to be given their “natural and ordinary meaning taken in their popular sense * * Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 327
Sprenger v. Insurance Co. of North America 559 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1995
Sprenger v. Insurance Co. of North America 559 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1995
See Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. 536 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1995
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. 536 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1995
Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 329
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. 515 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. 515 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 329 , Anderson v. Connecticut Fire Ins.
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust v. City of Coon Rapids 446 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust v. City of Coon Rapids 446 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“[T]he terms of an insurance policy are to be given their ordinary meaning, as well as the interpretations adopted in prior cases.” Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 327
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Anderson 427 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Anderson 427 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ANALYSIS A party claiming coverage under a nonowned automobile provision of an insurance policy has the burden of proving that such automobile was not “furnished or available for the regular or frequent use of the named insured.” Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 329
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. VanDoren 424 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. VanDoren 424 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323 , the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that exclusion of liability coverage under a “non-owned automobile” provision was proper even though the tortfeasor was a “named insured."
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
See, e.g., Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323, 329
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
Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323 , Simon v. Milwaukee Auto.
Leegaard v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. 255 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1977
Leegaard v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. 255 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1977
We have considered the scope of this phrase in two recent cases: Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323 , and Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
O'Connor v. Schwartz 229 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1975
Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Companies 229 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 1975
O'Connor v. Schwartz 229 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1975
Co. 231 Minn. 469 , Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323
Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Companies 229 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 1975
See, Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93 , Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323
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
Defendant places great emphasis on Boedigheimer v. Taylor, 287 Minn. 323
Fitch v. Bye 180 N.W.2d 866 Minn. 1970