Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Faber v. Roelofs, 250 N.W.2d 817.

32 citing documents.

Nicholas Johnson and Michelle Johnson, individually and as parents and natural guardians of D.J., a minor, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 817, 820 (Minn. 1977).
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428, 436-37
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Underwriters, -26 (Minn.1980); see also Meadowbrook, d at 417 & n. 15; Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428, 433-34 , Oehme v. Johnson, 181 Minn. 138, 148-50 , 231 N.W.
Andrew L. Youngquist, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 625 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Andrew L. Youngquist, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 625 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428, 436 , is instructive on this issue.
Foster v. Summit Medical Systems, Inc. 610 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Foster v. Summit Medical Systems, Inc. 610 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428, 436 , (the phrase “arising out of’ is broad).
Amos Ex Rel. Amos v. Campbell 593 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Amos Ex Rel. Amos v. Campbell 593 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co., (quoting Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428, 437 , ).
More Clinic v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 575 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
More Clinic v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 575 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See also Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428, 435 , -822 (1977) (claim for injury to child run over by school bus fell within ambit of exclusion in school’s general liability policy for injuries "arising out of” use of a motor vehicle); Fillmore v. Iowa Nat'l Mut.
Redeemer Covenant Church of Brooklyn Park v. Church Mutual Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Redeemer Covenant Church of Brooklyn Park v. Church Mutual Insurance Co. 567 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In arguing that the exclusions do apply to Redeemer, appellant cites Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428, 435 , -22 (Minn.1977) (holding that coverage of a negligence claim brought against a school district on behalf of a student injured by a bus was precluded by an exclusion for “bodily injuries arising out of the use” of a bus).
Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1997
Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1997
Typically, this court has defined the words ‘arising out of in an insurance policy to mean ‘causally connected with’ and not ‘proximately caused by.’ Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428, 437
Vang v. Vang 490 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Vang v. Vang 490 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
No. 625 v. Columbia Transit Corp., and Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428
Steen v. Those Underwriters at Lloyds, London Signatory to Policy No. E0100191 442 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Steen v. Those Underwriters at Lloyds, London Signatory to Policy No. E0100191 442 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Appellants’ reliance on Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428 , to support their estoppel argument is misplaced.
National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Evenson 439 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Evenson 439 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Faber v. Foelofs, 311 Minn. 428, 433-34
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
The phrase “arising out of” does not mean “proximately caused by.” Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428, 436
Fillmore v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co. 344 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Fillmore v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co. 344 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The Minnesota Supreme Court recognized this difference in Faber v. Roelefs, 311 Minn. 428
St. Paul School District No. 625 v. Columbia Transit Corp. 321 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 1982
St. Paul School District No. 625 v. Columbia Transit Corp. 321 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 1982
In addition, the trial court held that, under Faber v. Roelofs, 311 Minn. 428 , Home was the primary insurer of the School District as to the 80% negligence assessed against the District, and that because the District had not sustained any “ultimate net loss,” The St.
Erickson v. Brown & Bigelow 281 N.W.2d 699 Minn. 1979
Scott v. Independent School District No. 709 256 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 1977
Scott v. Independent School District No. 709 256 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 1977
Application of Faber The final issue presented is the application of Faber v. Roelofs, 298 Minn. 16 , on subsequent appeal, *490 Minn., to the facts of this case.