Cited by

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

132 citing documents.

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.