Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Miller v. Shugart, 316 N.W.2d 729.

175 citing documents.

Buller v. Minnesota Lawyers Mutual 648 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Buller v. Minnesota Lawyers Mutual 648 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-34 (Minn.1982), an insured may settle a claim on the condition that the settlement is collectible only from the available insurance.
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
The supreme court has stated that attorneys hired by an insurance company “owe their allegiance to their clients, the insureds, to best represent their interests.”
North Star Mutual Insurance Co v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. 634 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
North Star Mutual Insurance Co v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. 634 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Nuessmeier Electric, Inc. v. Weiss Manufacturing Co. 632 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Nuessmeier Electric, Inc. v. Weiss Manufacturing Co. 632 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Samuelson v. Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific R.R., 287 Minn. 264, 268-70 , (accepting, without specifically deciding, that a jury determination on the reasonableness of the settlement in a contribution action is sufficient to determine damages when the tortfeasors have common liability for common damages); (characterizing Samuelson as recognizing that co-tortfeasor in contribution action must only prove that settlement is reasonable).
Health Personnel v. Peterson 629 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Health Personnel v. Peterson 629 N.W.2d 132 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(approving a variety of tort settlement where an insured tortfeasor agrees to an adverse judgment provided it is enforceable only against the tortfeasor’s insurer).
Zurich Reinsurance (UK) Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 613 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Zurich Reinsurance (UK) Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 613 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- Zurich’s reliance on Miller-Shugart is misplaced.
Majestic Inc. v. Berry 593 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Majestic Inc. v. Berry 593 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
See, (parties used confession of judgment to settle liability dispute).
Koehnen v. Dufuor 590 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1999
Koehnen v. Dufuor 590 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1999
(validating stipulated tort judgment which limited liability to insurer).
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. & Affiliates v. Miller 589 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1999
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. & Affiliates v. Miller 589 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 1999
Munzer v. Feola 985 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Burbach v. Armstrong Rigging & Erecting, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Burbach v. Armstrong Rigging & Erecting, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Rice Lake Contracting Corp. v. Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 549 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Rice Lake Contracting Corp. v. Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 549 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See, (proponents of contested settlement agreement must prove the agreement is “reasonable and prudent”); (settlement agreements between some parties involved in litigation must be disclosed to all parties immediately).
Chalmers v. Kanawyer 544 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Chalmers v. Kanawyer 544 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Rw v. Tf 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
R.W. v. T.F. 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
Rw v. Tf 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
R.W. v. T.F. 528 N.W.2d 869 Minn. 1995
Independent School District No. 197 v. Accident & Casualty Insurance of Winterthur 525 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Independent School District No. 197 v. Accident & Casualty Insurance of Winterthur 525 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
s garnishment action in Minnesota; (2) the case involves claims of damage to property located in Minnesota, enforcement of a settlement agreement executed in Minnesota, and interpretation of numerous insurance policies; (3) the underlying action between the schools and Grace was commenced, litigated, and settled in Minnesota; (4) and (5) both New York and Minnesota recognize the “actual injury” trigger of coverage.
Employers Mutual Co. v. Oppidan 518 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1994
Haarstad v. Graff 517 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1994
Employers Mutual Co. v. Oppidan 518 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 1994
lue of the plaintiffs’ claims was $2,000,000, that Western World would pay $150,000, and that “any further cause of action [would] be prosecuted exclusively against Employers.” They characterized their stipulation for entry of judgment of $2,000,000 against Duluth Regional Care Center, Inc. (but which the Care Center would have no obligation to pay) as a
Haarstad v. Graff 517 N.W.2d 582 Minn. 1994
-34 (Minn.1982), we gave our approval to agreements of this type, whereby insureds enter into settlements that relieve them of personal liability at a time when their insurance coverage is in doubt.
Opal Corp. v. American Family Insurance Group 518 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Opal Corp. v. American Family Insurance Group 518 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
the parties entered into a reverse Naig settlement, stipulating that liability for the subrogation claim exceeds $100,000.
Board of Regents v. Royal Insurance Co. of America 517 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1994
Board of Regents v. Royal Insurance Co. of America 517 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1994
When the liability insurers of Asbestospray and H & A Construction denied coverage, confessing judgment in fa *890 vor of the Regents for $1.6 million, and assigning their claims against their insurers to the Regents.
Drake v. Ryan 514 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1994
Drake v. Ryan 514 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1994
we held that when an insurer unreasonably disputes coverage, the plaintiff and the insured tortfeasor may stipulate a settlement in plaintiffs favor and agree that the judgment will be taken from the insurance policy and not from the tortfeasor’s personal assets.
Sphere Drake Insurance Co. v. Tremco, Inc. 513 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sphere Drake Insurance Co. v. Tremco, Inc. 513 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Houg v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 509 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Houg v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 509 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
SARA L. v. Broden 507 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
SARA L. v. Broden 507 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Bob Useldinger & Sons, Inc. v. Hangsleben 505 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1993
Bob Useldinger & Sons, Inc. v. Hangsleben 505 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1993
One factor we considered in upholding the settlement was that “there was a certain distance in the relationship between the facts on which the coverage question depended and those governing the issues of liability and damages in the main action.” Buysse, (explaining Miller-Shugart, ).
BD. OF REGENTS OF U. OF M. v. Royal Ins. 503 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1993

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by