Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Prahm v. Rupp Construction Co., 277 N.W.2d 389.

132 citing documents.

Fabyanske Westra Hart & Thomson PA v. Western National Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Minnesota Sporting Clays Association, a Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Co., (“An insurer is required to defend a suit brought against its insured when the suit is not clearly within an exclusionary clause of the policy.” ); Meadowbrook, Inc., d at 418 (stating that an insurer must show that the asserted claims clearly fall outside the policy); Wakefield Pork, I
Richard Duncan, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Co., (“Any ambiguity [regarding an insurer’s duty to defend] is resolved in favor of the insured, and the burden is on the insurer to prove that the claim clearly falls outside the coverage afforded by the policy.”).
Nicholas Johnson and Michelle Johnson, individually and as parents and natural guardians of D.J., a minor, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Co., ( syllabus by the court).
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. 913 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 2018
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. 913 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 2018
Co. v. Wolters , , 636 (Minn. 2013) ("Any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the insured[.]" (quoting Prahm v. Rupp Const. Co. , , 390 (Minn. 1979) ) ); Travelers Indem.
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wolters 831 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2013
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wolters 831 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2013
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Earthsoils, Inc. 812 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Earthsoils, Inc. 812 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Co., see also Reinsurance Ass’n (stating that facts submitted in support of underlying claims may be considered to clarify but not expand the claims asserted in the complaint), review denied (Minn. May 14, 2002).
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurnce Co. 806 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurnce Co. 806 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Jarvis & Sons, Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE UNDERWRITERS 768 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jarvis & Sons, Inc. v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE UNDERWRITERS 768 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
With regard to the duty to defend, an insurer is required to defend a suit brought against its insured “[i]f any part of a cause of action is arguably within the scope of coverage of the policy.”
Hornberger v. Wendel 764 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hornberger v. Wendel 764 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Westfield Insurance Co. v. Kroiss 694 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Westfield Insurance Co. v. Kroiss 694 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Co., (holding that duty to defend exists despite uncertainty over who had dominion or control over a baekhoe at the time of the accident); Reinsurance Ass’n -15 (Minn.App.2002) (holding that a complaint for fraud and consumer fraud can be reasonably construed to inclu
Home Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh 658 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 2003
Home Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh 658 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 2003
Home Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh 643 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Home Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh 643 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Andrew L. Youngquist, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 625 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Andrew L. Youngquist, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 625 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Co., Columbia Heights Motors, Inc. v. Allstate Ins.
Westling Manufacturing Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 581 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Westling Manufacturing Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 581 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Co., 307 Minn. 352, 354 , (stating that insurer who asserts coverage exclusion has burden of establishing that exclusion is applicable); (stating that insurer seeking to avoid defending insured has burden of demonstrating that all parts of cause of action against insured clearly fall outside scope of coverage); John Deere Ins.
Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1998
Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 1998
MINNESOTA SCHOOL BD. v. Dahl 566 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
MINNESOTA SCHOOL BD. v. Dahl 566 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1997
Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1997
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co. 552 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Fluoroware, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 545 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Fluoroware, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 545 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Ross v. Briggs and Morgan 540 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1995
Ross v. Briggs and Morgan 540 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 1995
Polaris Industries, L.P. v. Continental Insurance Co. 539 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Polaris Industries, L.P. v. Continental Insurance Co. 539 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Tschimperle v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 529 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Tschimperle v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 529 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Rohrer v. Rick 529 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Rohrer v. Rick 529 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kroschel v. City of Afton 524 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1994
Kroschel v. City of Afton 524 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1994
Fairview Hospital & Health Care Services v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 518 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Fairview Hospital & Health Care Services v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 518 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Paul would defend any suit against the insured alleging “damages, even if such suit is groundless, false or fraudulent* * An insurer’s obligation to defend is contractual in nature, and if “any part of a cause of action is arguably within the scope of coverage, the insurer must defend.” see also Brown v. State Auto.