Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Company, 207 N.W.2d 348.

75 citing documents.

Swanson v. Brewster 784 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2010
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 779 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 2010
Tezak v. Bachke 698 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Tezak v. Bachke 698 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Co., 296 Minn. 181, 187 , ).
Stout v. AMCO Insurance Co. 645 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 2002
Explained Stout v. AMCO Insurance Co. 645 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 2002
Sheung Kwong v. Depositors Insurance Co. 612 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Sheung Kwong v. Depositors Insurance Co. 612 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Smith v. American States Insurance Co. 586 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Smith v. American States Insurance Co. 586 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Co., 296 Minn. 181, 187 , (where insured separately purchased medical insurance to cover expenses actually incurred, without regard for fault or recovery from tortfeasor, insurer cannot use availability of that insurance to dilute uninsured motorist coverage).
Kroning v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1997
Gross v. General Casualty Insurance Co. 438 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Gross v. General Casualty Insurance Co. 438 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The supreme court has stated that uninsured motorist coverage “is in effect a substitute for [the] insurance that the tort-feasor should have had.” Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Company, 296 Minn. 181, 189
Wille v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 432 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wille v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 432 N.W.2d 784 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Company, 296 Minn. 181
Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 428 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1988
Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 428 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1988
Co., 296 Minn. 181 , was extended to UIM coverage, and the insured was permitted to stack the UIM coverage applicable to each covered vehicle.
AMCO Insurance Co. v. Lang 420 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1988
AMCO Insurance Co. v. Lang 420 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1988
Since 1973, however, when this court permitted the stacking of the uninsured motorist coverage of four separate policies issued to an insured, Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Company, 296 Minn. 181 , it has been the rule in Minnesota that first party coverages follow the person, not the vehicle, and that policy provisions designed to preclude recovery of first party benefits for which the insurer has collected a separate premium are contrary to public policy and are, therefore, void.
Parsons v. Parsons 413 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Parsons v. Parsons 413 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Finally, the cases cited for the proposition that an insurer should not “have a windfall in premiums for coverages not honored,” Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181 , do not stand for the opposite proposition that failure to pay a specified premium compels a finding of no coverage.
Gould v. Johnson 379 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gould v. Johnson 379 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181
Sobania v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1985
Sobania v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1985
See also Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Company, 296 Minn. 181, 187 , (permitting stacking of uninsured motorist benefits when uninsured motorist coverage was mandatorily offered coverage: “But if the question must be resolved on the basis of who gets a windfall, it seems more just that the insured who paid a premium should get all he paid for rather th
Rector v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 369 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rector v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 369 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Furthermore, should this court adopt the position urged by State Farm, the result would be contrary to that line of precedent established by Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181
Hilden v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co. 365 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1985
Hilden v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co. 365 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1985
Conceding that nothing in the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act expressly addresses the issue, the plaintiffs contend that the stated purpose of the No-Fault Act mandates application of the rationale on which Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181 , and the subsequent cases dealing with various forms of first party insurance coverage are based.
Streich v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 358 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1984
Streich v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 358 N.W.2d 396 Minn. 1984
See, (stacking of basic economic-loss benefits requires the injured person to be insured under two or more policies applicable at the same priority level); (underinsured motorist coverage may be stacked); and Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181 , (pre-no-fault insurance, uninsured motorist benefits could be stacked).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Galloway 354 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Galloway 354 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181, 189 , Brunmeier v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 296 Minn. 328, 334 , Taylor v. Great Central Insurance Co., 305 Minn. 446, 448-49
Burgraff v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. 346 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1984
Burgraff v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. 346 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1984
Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181, held that an insured who had uninsured motorist coverages on several automobiles with separate premiums paid for each can stack these coverages and that an "other insurance” or an excess insurance clause in the policy will not defeat stacking.
Doerner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 337 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1983
Doerner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 337 N.W.2d 394 Minn. 1983
nce Co. v. State Farm Automobile & Casualty Underwriters Insurance Co., 307 Minn. 173 , (resident relative insured); Nygaard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 301 Minn. 10 , (resident relative insured); Pleitgen v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 296 Minn. 191 , (named insured); Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181 , (named insured).
Yeager v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1983
Yeager v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1983
Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181, 187 , -52 (1973)
American Motorist Insurance Co. v. Sarvela 327 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1982
American Motorist Insurance Co. v. Sarvela 327 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1982
See Nygaard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 301 Minn. 10 , (court voided exclusionary clause which precluded stacking of uninsured coverage when insured injured on motorcycle); Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181 , (court voided exclusionary clause in permitting stacking of uninsured benefits under the previous optional coverage requirement).
Hueper v. Goodrich 314 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1982
Hueper v. Goodrich 314 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1982
Co., 296 Minn. 181 , (insurance paid for by plaintiff should not benefit tortfeasor); *827 Local 1140, Int’l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach.
Forcier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 310 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1981
Forcier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 310 N.W.2d 124 Minn. 1981
Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. St. Paul Insurance Companies 305 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 1981
Johnson Ex Rel. Johnson v. St. Paul Insurance Companies 305 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 1981
On May 11, 1973, approximately three months after the minor settlement was approved, this court decided Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181
Weiss v. Farmers Insurance Group 302 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1981
Weiss v. Farmers Insurance Group 302 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1981
See In re Pleitgen v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 296 Minn. 191 , Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181
Koons v. National Family Insurance Co. 301 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 1981