Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co., 318 N.W.2d 849.

43 citing documents.

American Family Insurance Group v. Schroedl 616 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 2000
American Family Insurance Group v. Schroedl 616 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 2000
Co., , *280 851, 853 (Minn. 1982); League Gen.
Pecinovsky v. AMCO Insurance Co. 613 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Pecinovsky v. AMCO Insurance Co. 613 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Co., -53 (Minn. 1982); Kuchenmeister v. Illinois Fanners Ins.
American Family Insurance Group v. Schroedl 598 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
American Family Insurance Group v. Schroedl 598 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co., (implying that optional coverage need not be re-offered at each policy renewal).
Tallent v. National General Insurance 915 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1996
Tallent v. National General Insurance 903 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Ash 888 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. 438 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. 438 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Pinney v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 435 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Westendorf v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Westendorf v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Pinney v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 435 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
the supreme court set forth four basic concerns relevant to determining compliance with the mandatory offer provisions in section 65B.49.
Osterdyke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 420 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1988
Osterdyke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 420 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1988
Co., Frank v. Illinois Farmers Ins.
Clark v. Allstate Insurance Co. 405 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Clark v. Allstate Insurance Co. 405 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lewis v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lewis v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
They are that the insurer specify the limits of optional coverages; that it “intelligibly advise the insured of the nature of the optional coverage”; “that the insured be apprised that optional coverages are available for a relatively modest increase in premiums; and, finally, that the offer be made in a ‘commercially reasonable manner’.”
Osterdyke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Osterdyke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Tibbals v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 370 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Tibbals v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 370 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Erickson ex rel. Erickson v. Allstate Insurance Co. 370 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Erickson ex rel. Erickson v. Allstate Insurance Co. 370 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Henriksen v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 364 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Henriksen v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 364 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Co., indicate that a time lag between notices does not prevent their being considered together, they do not provide authority for consideration of pre-No-Fault notices.
Eckman v. Allstate Insurance Co. 358 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Eckman v. Allstate Insurance Co. 358 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Squier v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. 356 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Squier v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. 356 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Co., the Minnesota Supreme Court listed four requirements for a valid offer of underinsured motorist coverage: (1) the method of notification must be commercially reasonable; (2) the limits of the coverage must be specified and not merely offered in general terms; (3) the insurer must intelligibly advise the i
Boldt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 345 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1984
Boldt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 345 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 1984
Co., we enunciated four criteria relevant to a determination of whether there has been compliance with the mandatory offer provision.
Maher v. All Nation Insurance Co. 340 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Maher v. All Nation Insurance Co. 340 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
Co., -52 (1982), articulated four basic concerns: (1) that the method of the offer be commercially reasonable; (2) that the limits of the optional coverages be specified and not merely offered in general terms; (3) that the insurer intelligibly advise the insured of the nature of the optional coverage; and (4) that the
Frank v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 336 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1983
Frank v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 336 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1983
which holds that the insurer must offer underinsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to the insured’s residual liability limits and at “lower limits which the insured may select,” and note appellant’s admission that no offer at lower or smaller limits was made.
Yeager v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1983
Randall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1983
Randall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1983
Yeager v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 335 N.W.2d 733 Minn. 1983
we identified four factors, three of which (since the offer here was oral, not written) are relevant here, to be used in examining the adequacy of a mandatory offer.