Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co., 428 N.W.2d 85.

58 citing documents.

Behr v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 638 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Behr v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 638 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Dohney v. Allstate Insurance Co. 632 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 2001
Dohney v. Allstate Insurance Co. 632 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 2001
Broton, -90 (Minn.1988).
Schons v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 621 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 2001
Washington v. Milbank Insurance Co. 562 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1997
Washington v. Milbank Insurance Co. 562 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1997
Co., (concluding that the underinsurer’s substitution allows the underinsurer to step into the shoes of the claimant, therefore possessing a subrogation right to maintain the claimant’s tort action and recoup the amount of the substitution payment from the tortfea-sor’s liability insurance carrier).
Gusk v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1997
Gusk v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1997
Co., (stating that a claimant who settles and releases an underinsured tortfeasor without notice does so “at his or her peril”).
Washington v. Milbank Insurance Co. 551 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Washington v. Milbank Insurance Co. 551 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Co., (“An injured claimant does not always receive the full limit of the tortfeasor’s liability insurance even though the claimant’s damages exceed the policy limits.”).
Elwood v. Horace Mann Insurance Co. 531 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Elwood v. Horace Mann Insurance Co. 531 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Richards v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 518 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1994
Richards v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 518 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 1994
Richards v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 505 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Richards v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 505 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co., -90 (Minn.1988) (confirming prospect of underinsurer’s liability for gap, construing Minn.Stat.
Employers Mutual Companies v. Nordstrom 495 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1993
Employers Mutual Companies v. Nordstrom 495 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 1993
Co., -90 (Minn.1988), we said that the legislature, by amendments to the No-Fault Act, had adopted the position of the Schmidt dissent.
Neuman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 492 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1992
Neuman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 492 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 1992
Junker v. Allstate Insurance Co. 489 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Junker v. Allstate Insurance Co. 489 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Co., -90 (Minn.1988); Onasch v. Auto-Owners Ins.
Neuman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Neuman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Royal-Milbank Insurance Co. v. Busse 474 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Royal-Milbank Insurance Co. v. Busse 474 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Co., Jacobson v. Illinois Farmers Ins.
Costello v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 472 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
Costello v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 472 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
Casey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Casey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Sutherland v. Allstate Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Sutherland v. Allstate Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Kothrade v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 462 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Kothrade v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 462 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Gimmestad v. Gimmestad 451 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Gimmestad v. Gimmestad 451 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Onasch v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 444 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Onasch v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. 444 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
8), has held that “the maximum liability of the insurer with respect to underinsured motorist coverage is the lesser of the difference between the limits of UIM coverage set out in the policy * * * and the amount which has been paid or will be paid to the insured by or for the tortfeasor * * *, or the amount of damages sustained but not recovered.”
Anderson v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 443 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Anderson v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 443 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Weber v. Sentry Insurance 442 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Weber v. Sentry Insurance 442 N.W.2d 164 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Home correctly argues that the 1985 provide that the “lesser of the differences” method of calculating underin-surance liability has replaced the “add-on” method and that this rule is applicable here.
Great American Insurance Companies v. LeMieux 439 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Great American Insurance Companies v. LeMieux 439 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Thommen v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 437 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 1989
Brosdahl v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. 437 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Brosdahl v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. 437 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Subsequent to its decision in Broton, the supreme court remanded Brosdahl back to this court for a decision on the merits.
Presnell v. Allstate Insurance Co. 434 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Presnell v. Allstate Insurance Co. 434 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
4a (1986) which allow the insured who communicates the tortfeasor’s settlement offer to the underinsured motorist insurer to recover the difference between the tortfeasor’s underinsured motorist liability limit and the settlement proceeds.