Cited by

Co., -40 (Minn. 1980) (finding that a no-fault insurer must pay basic economic-loss benefits even if those benefits duplicate payments from the insured’s health insurer).

t concluded that, under the plain language of this section, the “amount or dollar value of the medical expense which is incurred by a patient is the amount reflected in the medical service provider’s initial billing statement, not the amount which the service provider might ultimately decide to accept in payment of the bill.” Third, -40 (Minn.1980), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

and Brunmeier v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 296 Minn. 328 , appellant contends that [Minnesota] courts have consistently held that mandated first party coverages should not be defeated merely because an insured held another policy which also covered the occurrence.

the supreme court held that an insurer had no right to coordinate its own obligations with amounts paid by another insurer: If the legislature had intended to allow [the insurer] to defer its payment of benefits because of the existence of health insurance covering the same losses, it would have written s

Janzen v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., Taylor v. Great Central Insurance Co., 305 Minn. 446, 448-49

See, (stacking of basic economic-loss benefits requires the injured person to be insured under two or more policies applicable at the same priority level); (underinsured motorist coverage may be stacked); and Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insura

we recognized that one of the prerequisites to stacking of basic economic loss benefits is that “the injured person must be an insured under two or more policies of no-fault insurance applicable on the same priority level * *

See, e. g., (health insurance); (workers’ compensation).