Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark v. Viktora, 318 N.W.2d 704.

75 citing documents.

Progressive Insurance, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quotation omitted); accord Skarsten, d at 19.
Kawaljit S. Bhatia, as Trustee for the next of kin of Ena M. Bhatia, deceased, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Nichole Cox, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018
Kremer v. Kremer 912 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2018
v. Viktora , , 706 n.1 (Minn. 1982) (citing Minn. R. Civ.
North Star Mutual Insurance Company v. Julie Joy Kruger, as trustee for the heirs and next of kin … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
North Star Mutual Insurance Company v. Julie Joy Kruger, as trustee for the heirs and next of kin … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
v. Viktora, (quotation omitted).
Lions Park Apartments, LLC v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lions Park Apartments, LLC v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
North Star Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jacob Quernemoen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
North Star Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jacob Quernemoen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Co. of Newark, however, the supreme court concluded that the injured person was a resident relative.
McGlothlin v. Steinmetz 751 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 2008
McGlothlin v. Steinmetz 751 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 2008
(quoting Pamperin v. Milwaukee Mut.
Frey v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 743 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Frey v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 743 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
where the court concluded that the phrase “residents of the Named Insured’s household” in a homeowner’s insurance policy was clear and unambiguous.
Thommes v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 641 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 2002
Thommes v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 641 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 2002
v. Viktora, (“Where the language [of an insurance contract] is unambiguous, we will not render a construction which is more favorable to finding coverage but will apply the phrase to the facts of the case in order to give effect to the plain meaning of the language”).
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Neumann 596 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Neumann 596 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(holding that son who lived with parents while on strike was resident of parents’ household); see also Auto-Owners Ins.
O'SELL v. Peterson 595 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
O'SELL v. Peterson 595 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-07 (Minn.1982) (analyzing “residency in a household” in no-fault context); Grier v. Estate of Grier, 252 Minn. 143, 147 , (holding “residence” means legal residence for will probate).
Vierkant Ex Rel. Johnson v. AMCO Insurance Co. 543 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Vierkant Ex Rel. Johnson v. AMCO Insurance Co. 543 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
v. Viktora, (citing Pamperin v. Milwaukee Mut.
Lott v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 541 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 1995
Lott v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 541 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 1995
we found similar language — “residents of the [n]amed [ijnsured’s household” — to be clear and unambiguous.
Lott v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 527 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lott v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 527 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(family living under same roof is the common and ordinary meaning of “household” in insurance policies).
Hammer v. Investors Life Insurance Co. of North America 511 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1994
Hammer v. Investors Life Insurance Co. of North America 511 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1994
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Thiem 503 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 1993
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Thiem 503 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 1993
(quoting Pamperin v. Milwaukee Mut.
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Thiem 498 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Thiem 498 N.W.2d 279 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hammer v. Investors Life Insurance Co. of North America 473 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Hammer v. Investors Life Insurance Co. of North America 473 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Schoer v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 473 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Schoer v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 473 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(quoting Pamperin v. Milwaukee Mut.
American National Fire Insurance Co. v. Estate of Fournelle 459 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
American National Fire Insurance Co. v. Estate of Fournelle 459 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 459 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 459 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Short 448 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
formal relationship; and (3) where the intended duration is likely to be substantial, where it is consistent with the informality of the relationship, and from which it is reasonable to conclude that the parties would consider the relationship “ * * * in contracting about such matters as insurance or in their conduct in reliance thereon.” Firemen’s Insurance Co. of Newark,, (quoting Pamperin v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co., 55 Wis.2d 27, 37 , -89 (1972)).
Johnson v. American Economy Insurance Co. 419 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Johnson v. American Economy Insurance Co. 419 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
istent with the informality of the relationship, and from which it is reasonable to conclude that the parties would consider the relationship “ * * * in contracting about such matters as insurance or in their conduct in reliance thereon.” Pamperin v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co., 55 Wis.2d 27, 37 , (quoted with approval in Firemen’s ).
Wood v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 415 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wood v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 415 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Fruchtman, 274 Minn. 54 , ; Firemen’s
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Lawson 406 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Lawson 406 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Oliver 741 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987