Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite League General Insurance Co. v. Tvedt, 317 N.W.2d 40.

34 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
Pinney v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 435 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Pinney v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 435 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
25, 1984) (offer for underinsured coverage insufficient where explanation or definition of same was lacking); (upholding offer that expressly urged serious consideration of optional liability packages, citing as reasons the increases in vehicle values and personal injury awards); (upholding offer that contained a straightforward statement of the
Jablonski v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 408 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1987
Jablonski v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. 408 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1987
Kuchenmeister v. Illinois Farmers Ins.
Proprietors Insurance Co. v. Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis 374 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Proprietors Insurance Co. v. Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis 374 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(citing Rasmussen v. Prudential Insurance Co., 277 Minn. 266 , ).
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
The insured must be given “enough information to make an intelligent decision about optional coverages.”
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
The mandatory offer must be meaningful and give the insured enough information to make “an intelligent decision.”
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
Ritchie v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 363 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Ritchie v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 363 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
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
The so-called mandatory offer must be meaningful and give the insured enough information to make “an intelligent decision.”
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
Hauer v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 352 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1984
Hauer v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 352 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1984
Integrity does not challenge the trial court’s finding that the 1972
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
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
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
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
The insured must be given “enough information to make an intelligent decision about optional coverages.”
Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co. 318 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1982
Hastings v. United Pacific Insurance Co. 318 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1982
Recently, we again had occasion to examine the mandatory offer provision in Minn.Stat.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by