Cited by

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

86 citing documents.

NAT. FARMERS UNION PROP. & CAS. v. Anderson 372 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
Farmers Insurance Group v. Hastings 366 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1985
Farmers Insurance Group v. Hastings 366 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1985
The trial court referred to both Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93
Woodland Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Palmi 366 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Woodland Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Palmi 366 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See, e.g. Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93 , (exclusion may be inapplicable although act inflicting assault is intended).
Farmers Insurance Group v. Hastings 358 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Farmers Insurance Group v. Hastings 358 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Independent School District No. 656 355 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Independent School District No. 656 355 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
An intentional injury or damage exclusion excludes coverage in a liability policy either if “a reason for the act is to inflict bodily injury or when the character of the act is such that an intention to inflict an injury can be inferred.” Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 99
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Williams 355 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1984
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Williams 355 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1984
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93
Hanson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 345 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1984
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Hill 314 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 1982
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Hill 314 N.W.2d 834 Minn. 1982
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169 , we stated: In Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 99 , we indicated that an injury is “expected or intended” from the standpoint of the insured if a reason for an insured’s act is to inflict bodily injury or “when the character of the act is such that an intention to inflict an injury can be inferred” as a matter of law.
Smith v. Senst 313 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1981
Distinguished Smith v. Senst 313 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1981
See Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93
Woida v. North Star Mutual Insurance Co. 306 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1981
Woida v. North Star Mutual Insurance Co. 306 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 1981
Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98-99
Brown v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters 293 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1980
Brown v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters 293 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1980
I. The Duty To Indemnify The insured’s homeowner’s liability policy contained a standard intentional acts exclusion which excluded coverage for “bodily injury or property damage caused intentionally by or at the direction of the insured.” In Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93 , this court interpreted an identical intentional acts exclusion.
Columbia Heights Motors, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co. 275 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1979
Columbia Heights Motors, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co. 275 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 1979
Co., 303 Minn. 16, 26 , nd 831, 837 (1975); Casperson v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98 , nd 327, 330 (1973).’ This is a well known and accepted principle of law as shown by the authorities collected in 1 Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law 2nd § 15:73.
Iowa Kemper Insurance Co. v. Stone 269 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 1978
Iowa Kemper Insurance Co. v. Stone 269 N.W.2d 885 Minn. 1978
Exchange v. Sipple, Minn., Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 99
LaPlante v. Pyramid Life Ins. Co. 267 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1978
LaPlante v. Pyramid Life Ins. Co. 267 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 1978
It relied on the well settled principle that ambiguities in insurance contracts are to be construed against the insurer, e. g., Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93
Inland Construction Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. 258 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1977
Inland Construction Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. 258 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1977
3 See, Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98, note 2 , Newcomb v. Meiss, 263 Minn. 315
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Sipple 255 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1977
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Sipple 255 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 1977
5 *376 Another case in which this court considered the application of the “intentional acts” exclusion is Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93
Continental Western Insurance v. Toal 244 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1976
Continental Western Insurance v. Toal 244 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1976
In Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98 , we held that an insurance policy’s intentional injury exclusion— “* * * * does not relieve the insurer of liability unless the insured has acted with intent to cause a bodily injury.
Caledonia Community Hospital v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 239 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 1976
Caledonia Community Hospital v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance 239 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 1976
831, 837 (1975); Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98
Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Companies 229 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 1975
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