Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Companies, 229 N.W.2d 516.

111 citing documents.

Magnetic Data, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 430 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Accordingly, this court must determine whether the district court “properly interpreted and applied the law to the facts.” See Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Cos., 304 Minn. 179, 183-84
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Karpe 430 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Karpe 430 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ANALYSIS I. Determination of whether an accident is the result of the use or maintenance of a motor vehicle should “turn on the particular facts presented.” Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Companies, 304 Minn. 179, 182 , (citations omitted).
Hanson v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. 422 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Hanson v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. 422 N.W.2d 288 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ANALYSIS The issue of whether an accident arises out of the use or maintenance of a motor vehicle is a legal one, and “each case presenting such a question must, to a great degree, turn on the particular facts presented.” -78 (Minn.1987) (quoting Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service In *290 surance Companies, 304 Minn. 179, 182 , ).
Huynh v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Huynh v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Accordingly, this court need not defer to the district court and may determine whether the court “properly interpreted and applied the law to the facts presented.” See Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Cos., 304 Minn. 179, 183-84 , (footnote omitted).
Peterson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 417 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Peterson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 417 N.W.2d 316 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Accordingly, this court need not defer to the trial court and “may determine whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied the law to the facts presented.” Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Cos., 304 Minn. 179, 183-84 , (footnote omitted).
Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Klug 415 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1987
Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Klug 415 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1987
Cos., 304 Minn. 179, 182
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Brockway 411 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Brockway 411 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Companies, 304 Minn. 179, 183-84
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 407 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 407 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The interpretation of the language of an insurance policy, however, is a question of law, and this court “may determine whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied the law to the facts presented.” Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Co., 304 Minn. 179 ,183- *695 84, (footnote omitted).
Marklund v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 400 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1987
Marklund v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 400 N.W.2d 337 Minn. 1987
the scope of the phrase as it was previously used in automobile liability insurance contracts, we stated: [T]he causal connection must be “reasonably apparent,” and that “the mere fact that the use of the vehicle preceded the harm which was later sustained is not sufficient to bring such harm within the coverage of the policy.” Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Co., 304 Minn. 179, 182 , (quoting 12 Couch, Insurance 2d § 45:56).
Edwards v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 399 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Edwards v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 399 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(quoting Associated Independent Dealers v. Mutual Service Insurance Co., 304 Minn. 179 , ).
Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Klug 394 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Klug 394 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
ANALYSIS In discussing maintenance and use questions, the supreme court has held that “each case presenting such a question must, to a great degree, turn on the particular facts presented.” Associated Independent Dealers, Inc., v. Mutual Service Insurance Companies, 304 Minn. 179, 182
Barry v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 386 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Barry v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 386 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Companies, 304 Minn. 179, 182
Timmers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 374 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Timmers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 374 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Further, the relationship between the use or maintenance and the injury must be more than a “mere fortuity.” See Associated Independent Dealers Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Co., 304 Minn. 179, 182
Benton County Agricultural Society v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. 372 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Benton County Agricultural Society v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Co. 372 N.W.2d 383 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
An appellate court, therefore, may review “whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied the law to the facts presented.” State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., -76 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); see Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Cos., 304 Minn. 179, 183-84
Classified Insurance Corp. v. Vodinelich 368 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1985
Criticized Classified Insurance Corp. v. Vodinelich 368 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 1985
Jorgensen by Jorgensen v. Auto-Owners Ins. 360 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Jorgensen by Jorgensen v. Auto-Owners Ins. 360 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Cos., 304 Minn. 179, 182
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. 359 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. 359 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Cos., 304 Minn. 179
North Star Mutual Insurance Co. v. Moon 357 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1984
North Star Mutual Insurance Co. v. Moon 357 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1984
Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance Companies, 304 Minn. 179, 183-84
Classified Insurance Corp. v. Vodinelich 354 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Classified Insurance Corp. v. Vodinelich 354 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ins., 304 Minn. 179, 181
Kolkin v. American Family Insurance Co. 347 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kolkin v. American Family Insurance Co. 347 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. v. Noska 331 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1983
Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. v. Noska 331 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1983
Co., 304 Minn. 179 , in which we stated: In general terms, it has been established that such relationship need not be a proximate cause in the strict legal sense.
Galle v. Excalibur Insurance Co. 317 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1982
Galle v. Excalibur Insurance Co. 317 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1982
Cos., 304 Minn. 179, 182 , (footnote omitted).
Krupenny v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 310 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1981
Krupenny v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 310 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1981
Companies, 304 Minn. 179
Tlougan v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 310 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1981
Tlougan v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 310 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1981
Cos., 304 Minn. 179, 182
Haagenson v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. 277 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1979
Rausch v. Beech Aircraft Corp. 277 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1979
Haagenson v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. 277 N.W.2d 648 Minn. 1979
Ins., 304 Minn. 179, 181