Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Sipple, 255 N.W.2d 373.

54 citing documents.

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
(question of whether insured struck another intentionally or reflexively during a heated exchange should be submitted to jury for purposes of determining insurance coverage).
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
v. Sipple, -77 (Minn.1977) (determining that the issue of intent should be submitted to the jury where the facts suggested that the insured acted instinctively in the form of a reflex when he struck another during a heated exchange); see also Peterson, d at 422 (noting that assault committed by intoxicated insured w
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
v. Sipple, -76 (Minn.1977).
Zimmerman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 605 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2000
Zimmerman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 605 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2000
Rohrer v. Rick 529 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Rohrer v. Rick 529 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
v. Sipple, (intent to harm was issue for jury where insured testified that he struck other instinctively and in self defense); Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 98-99 , (refusing to infer intent to injure where insured lightly pushed injured party when she refused to let him into the
Haarstad v. Graff 506 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Haarstad v. Graff 506 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
v. Sipple, (issue properly went to jury where insured testified to instirfctively striking the plaintiff who had come toward him in a menacing manner during an argument); see also Brown v. State Auto.
Rulli v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 479 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Rulli v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 479 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
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
Caspersen , 298 Minn, at 99, d at 330 ; see Note, Intentional Injury Exclusion Clauses — What is Insurance Intent?, 32 Wayne L.Rev.
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Luetmer 474 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Luetmer 474 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
n. 1 (Minn.1977); Newcomb v. Meiss, 263 Minn. 315, 322
Grossman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 461 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Grossman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 461 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson 445 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
Hennings v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 438 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hennings v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 438 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Economy Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Meyer 427 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Economy Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Meyer 427 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Peterson cites two cases where action on the part of an insured amounted to an instinctive reflex or a sudden impulsive defensive reaction: (state highway employee struck farmer during a heated argument, claiming, however, he did not strike in anger but as an unthinking reflexive, defensive action); (insured cut a finger during a tug-of-war with a baggage clerk and
Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson 426 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson 426 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
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
Peterson’s battery was clearly not “reflexive,” Brown v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters, or done in self-defense, -77 (Minn.1977).
Western Fire Insurance Co. v. Persons 393 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Western Fire Insurance Co. v. Persons 393 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
was faced with a provision almost identical to the one at issue here.
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Judith G. 379 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Judith G. 379 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he purpose of an ‘intentional acts’ exclusion is to prevent extending to the insured a license to commit wanton and malicious acts.”
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Berray 694 P.2d 191 Ariz. 1984
Transamerica Insurance Group v. Meere 694 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1984
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
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
Casper-sen, 298 Minn, at 98, d at 330 .
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Berray 694 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cady 318 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1982
Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cady 318 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1982
Newcomb v. Meiss, 263 Minn. 315, 322 , , 391 n.2 (Minn. 1979); , 374 n.1 (Minn.1977).
Smith v. Senst 313 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1981
Distinguished Smith v. Senst 313 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 1981
The facts in this case are similar to, but nevertheless distinguishable from, those in Brown v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters
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
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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by