Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Galle v. Excalibur Insurance Co., 317 N.W.2d 368.

39 citing documents.

Sandra Castillo as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jose Luis Estrada-Martinez v. American Standard Insurance Company of … 889 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sandra Castillo as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jose Luis Estrada-Martinez v. American Standard Insurance Company of … 889 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Co., see Minn. Stat. § 65B.42.
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Marvin 707 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Marvin 707 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Co., (finding coverage when plaintiff was injured by part of the vehicle that malfunctioned but denying coverage for two other injuries incurred while lifting heavy objects inside the vehicle); Van-Guilder v. Allstate Ins.
Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 699 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2005
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Great West Casualty 695 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Great West Casualty 695 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Kemmerer v. State Farm Insurance Companies 513 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kemmerer v. State Farm Insurance Companies 513 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Co., -70 (Minn.1982) (truck driver covered when cable broke, jammed trailer, and caused him to fall); Jorgensen v. Auto-Owners Ins.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Strope 481 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Strope 481 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Himle v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 445 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Himle v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 445 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Amer. Fam. Ins. v. Metro. Transit Com'n 424 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
American Family Insurance v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 424 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Amer. Fam. Ins. v. Metro. Transit Com'n 424 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(the supreme court used the purpose section to emphasize that the coverage was to be tied to automobile accidents).
American Family Insurance v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 424 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(the supreme court used the purpose section to emphasize that the coverage was to be tied to automobile accidents).
Huynh v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Huynh v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 421 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wiczek Ex Rel. Wiczek v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. 416 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wiczek Ex Rel. Wiczek v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. 416 N.W.2d 768 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Timmers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 374 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Timmers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 374 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The no-fault act limits recovery for injuries as a matter of policy to “activities ‘whose costs should be allocated to motoring as part of an automobile insurance package.’ ” (quoting Commissioner’s comments to section 1(a)(6) of the 1972 Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act).
Jorgensen by Jorgensen v. Auto-Owners Ins. 360 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Jorgensen by Jorgensen v. Auto-Owners Ins. 360 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See, (the insured was injured as he worked with a tarpaulin or while attempting to get down from a trailer); (a truck driver intending to open a trailer door was injured when a cable broke); pet.
Classified Insurance Corp. v. Vodinelich 354 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Classified Insurance Corp. v. Vodinelich 354 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Co., Tlougan v. Auto-Owner’s Ins.
Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. of Connecticut v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 352 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. of Connecticut v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 352 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Nadeau v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. 350 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1984
Nadeau v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. 350 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1984
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
Petrick v. Transport Insurance Co. 343 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Petrick v. Transport Insurance Co. 343 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Co., the Supreme Court consolidated two truck loading/unloading cases involving three different claimants.
Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. v. Noska 331 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1983
Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. v. Noska 331 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 1983
Co., Krupenny v. West Bend Mutual Ins.
Waldbillig v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 321 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1982
Waldbillig v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 321 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 1982
Thus, we have held that where workmen were injured while loading and unloading heavy boxes inside a stationary truck, their injuries were not compensable under the statute because they did not arise out of “maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a vehicle.”