Cited by

–14 (Minn. 2012) (discussing an insurer’s right to pursue an equitable subrogation claim against an insured’s negligent tenant); First Nat’l Bank of Menahga v. Schunk, 276 N.W.

Ikram then argues that, because lease agreement s an eviction action based on breach of a lease agreement fails without proof of damages.

d 1, 14 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

(providing framework for insurance companies to pursue subrogation claims against insured’s tenant when the tenant is negligent).

Co. v. Rohde , 9 (Minn. 2012).

Co. v. Rohde , , 6 (Minn. 2012).

Co. v. Rohde , d 1, 6 (Minn. 2012).

Co. v. Rohde , , 6 (Minn. 2012).

(quotations omitted); Day Masonry v. Independent Sch.

Co. v. Rohde , , 13 (Minn. 2012).

Co. v. Rohde , (q uotations omitted); Day Masonry v. Independent Sch.

Co. v. Rohde , (quotations omitted); Day Masonry v. Independent Sch.

(explaining that subrogation “is the substitution of another person in place of the creditor to whose rights he or she succeeds in relation to the debt, and gives to the substitute all the rights, priorities, remedies, liens, and securities of the person for whom he or she is substituted”).

(quoting 16 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance § 222:5 (3d ed. 1995)).

* to grant summary judgment to Tenants, concluding that Landlord may not maintain a subrogation action in these circumstances.

and review de novo the district court’s interpretation of statutes, Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.

d 1, 6 (Minn. 2012); Day Masonry v. Independent Sch.