Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kaysen v. Federal Insurance Co., 268 N.W.2d 920.

28 citing documents.

Kastning v. State Farm Insurance Companies 821 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Kastning v. State Farm Insurance Companies 821 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Co., (holding that because uninsured coverage offered by terms of insurance policy contravened uninsured coverage required by law, coverage must be inserted by operation of law), superseded by statute as recognized in Turner v. Mut.
Turner v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 663 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Turner v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 663 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The contention that because a corporation cannot sustain bodily injury the uninsured motorist coverage provided by a policy issued to a corporation was a
Gieser v. Home Indemnity Co. 484 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Gieser v. Home Indemnity Co. 484 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Laurich v. Emcasco Insurance Co. 455 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Laurich v. Emcasco Insurance Co. 455 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Smith v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 455 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Smith v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 455 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Burgraff v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., *501 (Minn.1984); -25 (Minn.1978).
Park v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 396 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Park v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 396 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lundgren v. Vigilant Insurance Co. 391 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lundgren v. Vigilant Insurance Co. 391 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellant also argues that UIM coverage for a business is itself ambiguous, since a business cannot sustain the “bodily injury” it covers, nor have “family members” included within the definition of “insured.” -24 (Minn.1978), where the court stated: The [Polzin v. Phoenix of Hartford Ins.
Kruse v. Minnesota Automobile Assigned Claims Bureau 371 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kruse v. Minnesota Automobile Assigned Claims Bureau 371 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The supreme court, however, an assigned claims case, quoted a 1974 Report of the Minnesota State Bar Assn, and Minnesota CLE which stated that recovery is limited to members of an uninsured auto owner’s “household who could claim benefits by reason of that relationship * * *.” Id.
Dahle v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Co. 352 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1984
Dahle v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Co. 352 N.W.2d 397 Minn. 1984
Mohs v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 349 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Mohs v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 349 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Co., citing Nygaard v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.
Burgraff v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. 346 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1984
Burgraff v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. 346 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1984
where a corporate officer sought uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued to his corporate employer, we held that the policy definition of insured was contrary to the No-Fault Act, section 65B.49, subd.
Kashmark v. Western Insurance Companies 344 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1984
Kashmark v. Western Insurance Companies 344 N.W.2d 844 Minn. 1984
Co., on which the trial court relied, does not support the imputation of coverage under the circumstances of this case.
Rademacher v. Insurance Co. of North America 330 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1983
Rademacher v. Insurance Co. of North America 330 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1983
The contention that because a corporation cannot sustain bodily injury the uninsured motorist coverage provided by a policy issued to a corporation was a
American Motorist Insurance Co. v. Sarvela 327 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1982
American Motorist Insurance Co. v. Sarvela 327 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 1982
Northland Insurance Co. v. West, 294 Minn. 368, 374 , Oberstar v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 301 Minn. 406, 410 , Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters Insurance Co., 307 Minn. 173, 177-178 , aff’d on rehearing, appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 1062 , 100 S.Ct.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by