Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Caspersen v. Webber, 213 N.W.2d 327.

86 citing documents.

Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Meyer 768 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Meyer 768 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
B.M.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 664 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2003
B.M.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 664 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2003
The specific intent to cause injury requires “that the insured intended the harm itself, not that the insured intended to act.” Wicka, d at 329 ; accord Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98-99 , see, e.g., Walser, d at 613 (agreeing with the district court finding that Walser acted intentionally but not with the specific intent to cause injury).
American Family Insurance Co. v. Walser 628 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2001
American Family Insurance Co. v. Walser 628 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2001
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Neises 598 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Neises 598 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Toal distinguished Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93 , (finding no intent to injure when an insured pushed a victim who then fell against a metal rack).
Nygaard v. State Farm Insurance Co. 591 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
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
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
Vierkant Ex Rel. Johnson v. AMCO Insurance Co. 543 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Vierkant Ex Rel. Johnson v. AMCO Insurance Co. 543 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
Rw v. Tf 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
R.W. v. T.F. 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
Rw v. Tf 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
Id.; see also Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 99
R.W. v. T.F. 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
Id.; see also Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 99
Rohrer v. Rick 529 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Rohrer v. Rick 529 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
v. Sipple, (intent to harm was issue for jury where insured testified that he struck other instinctively and in self defense); Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98-99 , (refusing to infer intent to injure where insured lightly pushed injured party when she refused to let him into the coatcheck room).
Rw v. Tf 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Rw v. Tf 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
R.W. v. T.F. 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
R.W. v. T.F. 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
Reitzner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 510 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Reitzner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 510 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
Dornfeld v. Oberg 491 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Dornfeld v. Oberg 491 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 97-99
Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 493 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Hanks v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. 493 N.W.2d 302 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 100
Milbank Insurance Co. v. B.L.G. 484 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Milbank Insurance Co. v. B.L.G. 484 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98 , quoted in Toal, 309 Minn. at 174 , d at 124 .
Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Mpls. 482 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Mpls. 482 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 100
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka 474 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka 474 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 99
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka 461 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka 461 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(citing Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98 , ).
Economy Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Meyer 427 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Economy Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Meyer 427 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
I. Meyer, relying on Casperson v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98 , , *744 330 (1973) first argues: “Because this exclusionary clause does not expressly state that it was meant to exclude unintended injuries resulting from intentional acts, its provisions are at least arguably ambiguous.” In Casperson , the clause excluding from coverage the intentional acts of th
Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Mutual Service Insurance Co. 422 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Mutual Service Insurance Co. 422 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“[W]hen the language of an exclusionary clause to an insurance policy is ambiguous, any doubts to its meaning should be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurer who drafted the policy.” Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
Safeco Insurance Co. v. Lindberg 394 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1986
Safeco Insurance Co. v. Lindberg 394 N.W.2d 146 Minn. 1986
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
Safeco Insurance Co. v. Lindberg 380 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Safeco Insurance Co. v. Lindberg 380 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Judith G. 379 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Judith G. 379 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Smith 376 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Smith 376 N.W.2d 506 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
NAT. FARMERS UNION PROP. & CAS. v. Anderson 372 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1985