Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Holman v. All Nation Insurance Co., 288 N.W.2d 244.
- State v. Smith 899 N.W.2d 120 Minn. 2017
- Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood 770 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood 770 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- Pecinovsky v. AMCO Insurance Co. 613 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- Pecinovsky v. AMCO Insurance Co. 613 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- State v. Enger 539 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-
State v. Enger
539 N.W.2d 259
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Co., (holding that a clarifying act may be read into statutory law retrospectively).
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Ash 888 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. 515 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-
SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.
515 N.W.2d 588
Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Co., (party who must allege a particular fact has burden of proving it); (burden of proof is on party who will benefit from establishing that fact).
- Rural American Bank of Greenwald v. Herickhoff 485 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 1992
- Lilyerd v. Carlson 478 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Lilyerd v. Carlson 478 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Neuman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Neuman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Meister v. Western National Mutual Insurance 479 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1992
- Meister v. Western National Mutual Insurance 479 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1992
- Sutherland v. Allstate Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- Sutherland v. Allstate Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- Kothrade v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 462 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- Kothrade v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 462 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- Carlson v. Lilyerd 449 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
Carlson v. Lilyerd
449 N.W.2d 185
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Co., (“because the act * * * was designed to “clarif[y] certain ambiguous provisions” * * * [the] amendment may be read into * * * [the] section [retrospectively]); Spannaus, 311 Minn. at 354 , d at 588 (“when the language of an amendatory statute is intended *191 to clarify * * * the presumption
- Onasch v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 444 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Onasch v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 444 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Millers National Insurance v. Taylor Freeman Insurance Agency 779 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. 438 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. 438 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Pinney v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 435 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Westendorf v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Westendorf v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Pinney v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 435 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- 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
We note that this calculation uses the "add-on"
- Hellerstedt v. Old Republic Insurance Co. 429 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Hellerstedt v. Old Republic Insurance Co. 429 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 428 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1988
-
Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.
428 N.W.2d 85
Minn. 1988
Co., this court concluded that the 1977 amendments had the effect of overruling the “difference of limits” method articulated in Ldck for determining a UIM carrier’s maximum liability.
- AMCO Insurance Co. v. Lang 420 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1988
- Osterdyke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 420 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1988
-
AMCO Insurance Co. v. Lang
420 N.W.2d 895
Minn. 1988
Co., (underin-sured motorist coverage stacked); Sobania v. Integrity Mut.
-
Osterdyke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
420 N.W.2d 900
Minn. 1988
Co., we held, where an insurer failed to establish that the mandatory offer of underinsured coverage was made, such coverage would be read into the contract by operation of law.
- Broton v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 413 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Broton v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 413 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 414 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1987
- Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 414 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1987
- Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 413 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 413 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Jablonski v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 408 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1987
-
Jablonski v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co.
408 N.W.2d 854
Minn. 1987
Co., that when an insurer has not established that an adequate offer of coverage as mandated by statute has been made, the coverage will be imposed upon the policy by operation of law.