Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Canadian Universal Insurance Co. v. Fire Watch, Inc., 258 N.W.2d 570.

98 citing documents.

Benton v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. 500 N.W.2d 158 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co. Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
Sage Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 480 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Sage Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 480 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Bollmeier 474 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1991
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Bollmeier 474 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 1991
Co. v. Fire Watch, Inc., -75 (Minn.1977).
Retail Systems, Inc. v. CNA Insurance Companies 469 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Retail Systems, Inc. v. CNA Insurance Companies 469 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Glarner v. Time Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Glarner v. Time Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Co., Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Bollmeier 462 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Midway National Bank of St. Paul v. Bollmeier 462 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The trial court found the addition of the family exclusion provision to be a significant change in coverage and unenforceable because Bollmeier had not received adequate notice of the change as required by Canadian Universal Insurance Co. v. Fire Watch, Inc., (“When an insurer by renewal of a policy or by an endorsement to an existing policy substantially reduces the prior insurance coverage provided the insured, the insurer has an affirmative duty to notify the insured in writing of the change
Duane Wolff Agency, Inc. v. Northshore Marine, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Duane Wolff Agency, Inc. v. Northshore Marine, Inc. 463 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Co., Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Inc., the original policy was amended to remove coverage for losses arising out of negligent installation of fire protection equipment.
S.G. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 460 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
S.G. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 460 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Samuelson v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 446 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Samuelson v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 446 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Canadian Universal Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Inc., -75 (Minn.1977).
Wondra v. American Family Insurance Group 432 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wondra v. American Family Insurance Group 432 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Canadian Universal Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
Seaway Port Authority of Duluth v. Midland Insurance Co. 430 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Seaway Port Authority of Duluth v. Midland Insurance Co. 430 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Unambiguous provisions of an insurance policy are to be interpreted according to both “plain, ordinary sense” and “what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood the words to mean.” d at 637 (quoting Canadian Universal Insurance Co. v. Fire Watch, Inc., ).
Campbell v. Insurance Service Agency 424 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Campbell v. Insurance Service Agency 424 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Canadian Universal Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
Bloomquist v. NWNL General Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bloomquist v. NWNL General Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Canadian Universal Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
Amatuzio v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 409 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Amatuzio v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 409 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Canadian Universal Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
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
Canadian Universal Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
Metcalf v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Metcalf v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
1, 1985) (quoting Canadian Universal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
Schmidt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 376 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Schmidt v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 376 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The Atwater court cited Canadian Universal Insurance Co. v. Fire Watch, Inc., as another instance where the reasonable expectations doctrine was used to provide coverage when the actual language of the policy *241 would have proscribed coverage.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Kraayenbrink 370 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Kraayenbrink 370 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“The terms of an insurance policy should be construed according to what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood the words to mean rather than what the insured intended the language to mean.” Canadian Universal Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 366 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1985
Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 366 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1985
Canadian Universal Insurance Co. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
Eisenschenk v. Millers' Mutual Insurance Ass'n of Illinois 353 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Eisenschenk v. Millers' Mutual Insurance Ass'n of Illinois 353 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Boroos v. Roseau Agency, Inc. 345 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Boroos v. Roseau Agency, Inc. 345 N.W.2d 788 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Canadian Universal Insurance Co. v. Fire Watch, Inc., Olson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
Farmers Home Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lill 332 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1983
Farmers Home Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lill 332 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1983
Provisions in an insurance policy are to be interpreted according to both “plain, ordinary sense” and “what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood the words to mean.” Canadian Universal Insurance Co. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
Nordby v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. 329 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1983
Nordby v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. 329 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1983
It is well established that a “policy should be construed as a whole with all doubts concerning the meaning of language employed to be resolved in favor of the insured.” Canadian Universal Insurance Co. v. Fire Watch, Inc.
Bjorklund v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 306 N.W.2d 838 Minn. 1981
Moorhead MacHinery & Boiler Co. v. Employers Commercial Union Insurance Co. of America 285 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1979
Moorhead MacHinery & Boiler Co. v. Employers Commercial Union Insurance Co. of America 285 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 1979