Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 227 N.W.2d 807.

32 citing documents.

Kawaljit S. Bhatia, as Trustee for the next of kin of Ena M. Bhatia, deceased, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
North Star Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jacob Quernemoen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
North Star Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jacob Quernemoen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Co., 303 Minn. 387, the injured person was 19 years old, was employed, was providing for his own financial needs with no assistance from others, attended post-secondary school in Mankato, and intended for Mankato to be his residence.
Frey v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 743 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
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
Ins., 303 Minn. 387, 393
Schoer v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 473 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Schoer v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 473 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Co., 303 Minn. 387, 389 , Fruchtman v. State Farm Mut.
Johnson v. American Economy Insurance Co. 419 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Johnson v. American Economy Insurance Co. 419 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Minnesota, the first two Pampe-rin factors are generally satisfied by a finding that the person seeking coverage and the named insured “dwell together as a family under the same roof.” See Viktora, d at 707 (citing Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 387, 392 , ); Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250
Krause Ex Relo. Krause v. Mutual Service Casualty Co. 399 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Krause Ex Relo. Krause v. Mutual Service Casualty Co. 399 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
French, d at 841-43 ; Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 387, 392
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Wochnick 397 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Wochnick 397 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“Household” has been defined for insurance purposes as generally synonymous with ‘family’ and as including those who dwell together as a family under the same roof.” Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn 387, 392
Skarsten v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Skarsten v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Minnesota courts combine the first two factors by defining “household” “in its common and ordinary meaning ‘for insurance purposes as generally synonymous with ‘family’ and as including those who dwell together as a family under the same roof.’ ” Viktora, d at 707 (citing Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 387, 392 , ); Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , ).
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Harris Ex Rel. Harris 374 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Harris Ex Rel. Harris 374 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In short, for at least some significant time prior to the date in question, the relatives in the above cases dwelt “together as a family under the same roof.” Viktora, d at 707 (quoting Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 387, 392 , ).
French v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 372 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
French v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 372 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 387 , discussed whether a person was a resident of a relative’s household for purposes of a “non-owned automobile” policy provision.
Lewis v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lewis v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co,, 303 Minn. 387
Houser ex rel. Houser v. Dan Dugan Transport Co. 361 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1985
Houser ex rel. Houser v. Dan Dugan Transport Co. 361 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1985
See Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 387 , Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250 , Firemen’s
Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark v. Viktora 318 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1982
Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark v. Viktora 318 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 1982
*707 This court has generally encompassed the first two Pamperin factors by defining “household” in its common and ordinary meaning “for insurance purposes as generally synonymous with ‘family’ and as including those who dwell together as a family under the same roof.” Van Overbeke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 303 Minn. 387, 392 , Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250
Pederson v. All Nation Insurance Co. 294 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1980
Pederson v. All Nation Insurance Co. 294 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1980
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
Co., 303 Minn. 387, 393 , Boedigheimer v. Taylor, supra.
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