Cited by

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

72 citing documents.

Arbitration of Fryer v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. 365 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1985
Arbitration of Fryer v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. 365 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 1985
United States Fidelity &amp
Spira v. American Standard Insurance Co. 361 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Spira v. American Standard Insurance Co. 361 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
United States Fidelity &amp
Woog v. Home Mutual Indemnity Co. 340 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1983
Woog v. Home Mutual Indemnity Co. 340 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 1983
and United States Fidelity &amp
Myers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 336 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1983
Myers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 336 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1983
an insurance coverage question under an arbitration clause worded essentially the same as the clause in this case came before us after arbitration on denial of a motion to vacate an award.
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd. 334 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1983
Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd. 334 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 1983
U. S. Fidelity & n. 3 (Minn.1978).
Rosenberger v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 309 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1981
Rosenberger v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 309 N.W.2d 305 Minn. 1981
In U. S. Fidelity & the court was confronted with the question of the scope of review applicable to a coverage question initially determined by the arbitrator under the Dunshee procedure.
Matter of Markley 298 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1980
Matter of Markley 298 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1980
See also United States Fidelity &amp
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 495 290 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1980
Minnesota Education Ass'n v. Independent School District No. 495 290 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1980
See also United States Fidelity &amp
Halseth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 268 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1978
Halseth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 268 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1978
here the statutes specifically state that there be physical contact to provide coverage; (2) those where the statute speaks of the uninsured motorist, but fails to mention either physical contact or hit-and-run drivers; and (3) those where the statute speaks only of uninsured motorists and hit-and-run drivers without mention of physical contact.” In U. S. Fidelity & this court held that a policy-imposed, physical-contact requirement did not conflict with our prior uninsured-motorist-statute,
Children's Hospital, Inc. v. Minnesota Nurses Ass'n 265 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1978
Children's Hospital, Inc. v. Minnesota Nurses Ass'n 265 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 1978
State v. Berthiaume, Minn., United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Fruchtman, Minn., ; Nolde Brothers, Inc. v. Local No. 358, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 430 U.S. 243, 254 , 97 S.Ct.
Haekenkamp v. Allstate Insurance Co. 265 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1978
Haekenkamp v. Allstate Insurance Co. 265 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1978