Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Fruchtman, 263 N.W.2d 66.

72 citing documents.

Fernow v. Gould 835 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2013
Fernow v. Gould 835 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2013
In United States Fidelity & we stated that “(wjhere coverage is preconditioned on the establishment of facts ...
Western National Insurance Co. v. Thompson 797 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2011
Western National Insurance Co. v. Thompson 797 N.W.2d 201 Minn. 2011
(concluding that the insurance policy required physical contact with a hit-and-run vehicle as a precondition to uninsured motorist coverage).
Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Star Windshield Repair, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Star Windshield Repair, Inc. 743 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
City of Duluth v. Duluth Police Local 690 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
City of Duluth v. Duluth Police Local 690 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(referring to “judicial proceedings to stay or compel arbitration”).
Independent School District No. 775 v. Holm Bros. Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 660 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Independent School District No. 775 v. Holm Bros. Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 660 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
United States Fidelity &amp
Lueth v. City of Glencoe 639 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Lueth v. City of Glencoe 639 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local 320 v. County of St. Louis 611 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local 320 v. County of St. Louis 611 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
EEC Property Co. v. Kaplan 578 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
EEC Property Co. v. Kaplan 578 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
City of Morris v. Duininck Bros., Inc. 531 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
City of Morris v. Duininck Bros., Inc. 531 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Amdahl v. Green Giant Co. 497 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Amdahl v. Green Giant Co. 497 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-71 (Minn.1978); Local No. 1119, AFSCME v. Mesabi Regional Med.
Employers Mutual Companies v. Nordstrom 495 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1993
Employers Mutual Companies v. Nordstrom 495 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1993
Co., and United States Fidelity & (uninsured claim); and a recovery from the tort-feasor’s liability insurance is a nonarbitra-ble condition precedent to bringing an un-derinsured claim.
Eide v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 492 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Eide v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 492 N.W.2d 549 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
United States Fidelity &amp
Costello v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 472 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
Costello v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 472 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
United States Fidelity & -72 (Minn.1978).
County of Hennepin v. Hennepin County Ass'n of Paramedics & Emergency Medical Technicians 464 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
County of Hennepin v. Hennepin County Ass'n of Paramedics & Emergency Medical Technicians 464 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Local No. 1119, American Federation State, County, & Municipal Employees v. Mesabi Regional Medical Center 463 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Local No. 1119, American Federation State, County, & Municipal Employees v. Mesabi Regional Medical Center 463 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Vieths v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 441 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Arbitration Demand of 200 Levee Drive Associates, Ltd. v. Bor-Son Building Corp. 441 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Vieths v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 441 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
*577 The trial court must determine coverage issues before it orders arbitration, since “the objecting party must be protected from the burden of unauthorized arbitration of both the coverage dispute and the merits of the insured’s claim.” United States Fidelity &amp
Arbitration Demand of 200 Levee Drive Associates, Ltd. v. Bor-Son Building Corp. 441 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
United States Fidelity &amp
Knut. Co. v. Knutson Construction Co. 433 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Knut. Co. v. Knutson Construction Co. 433 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“When arbitrability is reasonably debatable, the arbitrators may proceed.” (citing United States Fidelity & ).
Safeco Insurance Co. v. Goldenberg 435 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Safeco Insurance Co. v. Goldenberg 435 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
United States Fidelity &amp
Medcenters Health Care, Inc. v. Park NicolletCenter 430 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Medcenters Health Care, Inc. v. Park NicolletCenter 430 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
United States Fidelity &amp
Johnson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 426 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1988
Johnson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 426 N.W.2d 419 Minn. 1988
The trial court must independently ascertain that intent “from the language of their written agreement and such other admissible evidence as may be submitted to resolve the questions of law or fact.” United States Fidelity &amp
Petrich Ex Rel. Lee v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Petrich Ex Rel. Lee v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
The issue of the identity of the driver is one of the “factual preconditions”
Johnson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 413 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Johnson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 413 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Koranda v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. 397 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Koranda v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. 397 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See United States Fidelity &amp
Ripka v. Mehus 390 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ripka v. Mehus 390 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The Minnesota Supreme Court dealt with an analogous issue in United States Fidelity &amp