Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Continental Western Insurance v. Toal, 244 N.W.2d 121.

76 citing documents.

Renee Dianne Florek, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[T]he presumption in tort and criminal law that a perso n intends the natural and probable consequences of his inte ntional acts has no applicatio n to the interpretation of terms used in insurance contracts.”).
Victoria L. Sloan v. Kelly O'Neil, Regina Sabbia, Kerrie Cathcart, Uptown Realty & Management, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Victoria L. Sloan v. Kelly O'Neil, Regina Sabbia, Kerrie Cathcart, Uptown Realty & Management, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 175, (holding that the presumption does not apply to the construction of terms used in 9 insurance contracts).
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
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 177 , (armed robbery); State Farm Fire & Cas.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Schwich 749 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Schwich 749 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Co. v. Tool, 309 Minn. 169, 177-78 , (committing armed robbery); State Farm Fire & Cas.
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co. 695 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co. 695 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 176, n. 3 , n. 3 (1976); Bituminous Cas.
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
309 Minn. 169, 177-78 , -23, 126 (1976).
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Ehmke 664 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Ehmke 664 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 174 , ).
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
Co. v. Tool, 309 Minn. 169, 177-78 , R.W., d at 873 .
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
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 177-78 , (intent inferred from the fact that insureds carried and used guns during a burglary).
Nygaard v. State Farm Insurance Co. 591 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Nygaard v. State Farm Insurance Co. 591 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 177-78 , (inferring intent to injure when the acts were calculated and remorseless, such as intentional preparation to inflict serious injury by carrying loaded guns).
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 563 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1997
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Henderson 939 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1997
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 563 N.W.2d 724 Minn. 1997
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169 , 176 & n. 3, , 125 & n. 3 (1976); Bituminous Cas.
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Co. v. Tool, 309 Minn. 169, 172
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Henderson 927 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
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
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169 , we applied a similar rule where the insured intentionally prepared to commit an armed robbery and ultimately killed someone during the robbery.
R.W. v. T.F. 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
Co. v. Tool, 309 Minn. 169 , we applied a similar rule where the insured intentionally prepared to commit an armed robbery and ultimately killed someone during the robbery.
Independent School District No. 197 v. Accident & Casualty Insurance of Winterthur 525 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Independent School District No. 197 v. Accident & Casualty Insurance of Winterthur 525 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Co. v. Tool, 309 Minn. 169 , 176 & 176 n. 3, , 125 & 125 n. 3 (1976) (“expected injury” cannot be equated with foreseeable injury because the term “expected” means a “high degree of certainty”).
Rw v. Tf 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Rw v. Tf 510 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 174
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
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 174
Donovan v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. 493 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Donovan v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. 493 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 177-78 , (armed robbery); -07 (Minn.App.1989) (drive-by shooting), pet.
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
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 176
Houg v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 481 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Houg v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 481 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 177 , (emphasis in original).
Sylvester Bros. Development Co. v. Great Central Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Sylvester Bros. Development Co. v. Great Central Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169 , 176 n. 3, , 125 n. 3 (1976).
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
Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169 , this court inferred an intent to cause bodily injury where the insureds had planned an armed robbery, knowing their weapons were loaded and that someone might be killed or injured.
Petersen v. Croft 447 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Petersen v. Croft 447 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
*907 Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 177-78 , -26 (1976).
Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson 445 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Peterson 393 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Peterson 393 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
An injury is “expected or intended” “if a reason for the 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.” Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 177