Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Koons v. National Family Insurance Co., 301 N.W.2d 550.

28 citing documents.

Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 551 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Johnson v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. 551 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Johnson v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. 551 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Co., Wasche v. Milbank Mut.
Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 551 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Co., Wasche v. Milbank Mut.
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
Meister v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 465 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Meister v. WESTERN NAT. MUT. INS. CO. 465 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Co., -54 (Minn.1981); Murphy v. Milbank Mut.
Meister v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Meister v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Co., -54 (Minn.1981); Murphy v. Milbank Mut.
Lanners v. National Family Insurance Co. 424 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Lanners v. National Family Insurance Co. 424 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“Stacking” is allowed only if (1) the basic loss benefits are applicable to the injured person “as an insured,” and (2) the “benefits are provided by policies applicable on a single priority level.”
Madden v. Home Insurance Company 367 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Madden v. Home Insurance Company 367 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kelsey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 365 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kelsey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 365 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the court declined to permit stacking of coverages where the injured party was not an “insured” under both policies and the policies were not on the same priority level.
Hilden v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co. 365 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1985
Hilden v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance Co. 365 N.W.2d 765 Minn. 1985
North River Insurance Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 346 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1984
North River Insurance Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 346 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1984
Wakefield v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 344 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1984
Wakefield v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. 344 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1984
Yeager v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1983
Yeager v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1983
Similarly, we said, “Benefits are stacked because the policyholder is paying on more than one policy for protection of persons insured under those policies.” The rationale behind stacking is twofold: the legislature requires certain coverages in all policies; and, second, a premium having been paid for that cov
Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance 320 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1982
Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance 320 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1982
we ruled that stacking is not permitted when basic economic loss benefits are provided by policies applicable on different priority levels.
Weiss v. Farmers Insurance Group 302 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1981
Weiss v. Farmers Insurance Group 302 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1981
Minn. 1981, wherein stacking was not allowed across priority levels.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by