Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Holman v. All Nation Insurance Co., 288 N.W.2d 244.

132 citing documents.

Squier v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. 356 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Squier v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. 356 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Eisenschenk v. Millers' Mutual Insurance Ass'n of Illinois 353 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Meyer v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Group 353 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Eisenschenk v. Millers' Mutual Insurance Ass'n of Illinois 353 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Meyer v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Group 353 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The word “other” appears to be superfluous because the court has allowed underinsurance benefits in a case where there was no “other vehicle.”
Hauer v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 352 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1984
Hauer v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 352 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1984
Integrity does not challenge the trial court’s finding that the 1972
Sobania v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 349 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sobania v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 349 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
: It is true that underinsured motorist coverage is not required to be included in the policy, as uninsured motorist coverage is.
Hoeschen v. South Carolina Insurance Co. 349 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hoeschen v. South Carolina Insurance Co. 349 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
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
Boldt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 345 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1984
Boldt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 345 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1984
Maher v. All Nation Insurance Co. 340 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Maher v. All Nation Insurance Co. 340 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Randall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1983
Yeager v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1983
Randall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1983
uired that the mandatory offer in automobile insurance cases include an apprisal of the “relatively modest increase in premiums,” Hastings, d at 853 , based on the reasoning that “[e]ven an insurance customer who asks for the minimum coverage might decide to buy additional coverage if told that the additional protection could be had at a minimal cost.”
Yeager v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1983
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
permitted the stacking of underinsured benefits.
Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co. 318 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1982
Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co. 318 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1982
League General Insurance Co. v. Tvedt 317 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1982
League General Insurance Co. v. Tvedt 317 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 1982
Kuchenmeister v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 310 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 1981
Kuchenmeister v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 310 N.W.2d 86 Minn. 1981
DiLuzio v. Home Mutual Insurance Co. 289 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1980
DiLuzio v. Home Mutual Insurance Co. 289 N.W.2d 749 Minn. 1980
§§ 65B.41 and 65B.71 (1978) (January 1, 1975), in Holman v. All Nation Insurance Co., Minn., .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by