Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co., 563 N.W.2d 724.

62 citing documents.

BGD, LLC v. Stephen K. Burns, Pacer Minerals, LLC, a South Dakota Limited Liability Company, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Co., (“[A] jury’s answer to a special verdict form can be set aside only if no reasonable mind could find as did the jury.”).
James A. Hoffman, M.D., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
USCC Services, LLC, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Co., d 724, 736 (Minn. 1997).3 We interpret exclusions narrowly, construing them strictly against the insurer.
Jesus Cardenas, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Co., 741 (Minn. 1997) (stating that “[a] jury’s answer to a special verdict form can be set aside only if no reasonable mind could find as did the jury” and affirming the denial of a new-trial motion).
Lisa Ann Poseley v. Andrew Scott Duff, and Lisa Ann Poseley on Behalf of Minor ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Lisa Ann Poseley v. Andrew Scott Duff, and Lisa Ann Poseley on Behalf of Minor ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Kelly Bell, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Co., (“The initial burden of demonstrating coverage rests with the insured .
Ammie Murphy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Goldmount Veterinary Center, P.A., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Michael Nassif, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co., (“[A] party is entitled to have the jury consider important questions of material fact raised by the pleadings and the evidence.”).
Zulfe Enterprises, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
King’s Cove Marina, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Co. , (discussing burden of proof on coverage).
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
White Bear Lake Restoration Ass'n ex rel. State v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res. 928 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Co. , , 734 (Minn. 1997) ; Cargill, Inc. v. Evanston Ins.
Melony Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC, Triad Title & Abstract, LLC, National Union Fire Insurance Company of … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Melony Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC, Triad Title & Abstract, LLC, National Union Fire Insurance Company of … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Daly v. McFarland 812 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 2012
Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co. 784 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2010
Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co. 784 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2010
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010
Dykes v. Sukup Manufacturing Co. 781 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2010
Co., , 741 n. 10 (Minn.1997).
Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co. 766 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co. 766 N.W.2d 58 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Donnelly Bros. Construction Co. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. 759 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Co., -34 (Minn.1997) (holding that it is only in those difficult cases in which property damage is both continuous and so intermingled as to be practically indivisible that Northern States Power properly applies); SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mut.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. A.P.I., Inc. 738 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Co., -34 (Minn.1997), that pro rata time on the risk is the proper allocation “in those difficult cases in which ...
Wooddale Builders, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. 722 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 2006
Wooddale Builders, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. 722 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 2006
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co. 718 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2006
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co. 718 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2006
On appeal to the court of appeals, Padilla argued that the district court erred in applying the objective test of M.B., and argued that this court had adopted a stricter
Wooddale Builders, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. 695 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co. 695 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Wooddale Builders, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co. 695 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Co., holding that “[e]aeh insurer is liable for that period of time it was on the risk compared to the entire period during which damages occurred.” see also Silicone, d at 62 (“Applying the law clearly set out in NSP and Domtar, the insurers are liable for their time on the risk in proportion to the entire period over which damages occur....”).
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co. 695 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Co., provides the proper test to determine whether Bloomington Steel should have expected the assault of Padilla by Reiners: For [comprehensive general liability] policies, this court has interpreted the meaning of “expected” damage to require a certainty of harm on the part of the insured greater than general
Schwickert, Inc. v. Winnebago Seniors, Ltd. 680 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2004
Schwickert, Inc. v. Winnebago Seniors, Ltd. 680 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2004
Co., which allowed recovery of attorney fees against a comprehensive general liability carrier that had breached the agreement by denying coverage, and Space Center, Inc. v. 451 Corp., stating the general proposition that “a repudiating party cannot set up the other party’
Parr v. Gonzalez 669 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Parr v. Gonzalez 669 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 667 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2003
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 667 N.W.2d 405 Minn. 2003
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation 652 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Co., a then-recent case that addressed allocation issues.
Cargill, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Co. 642 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Cargill, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Co. 642 N.W.2d 80 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Andrew L. Youngquist, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 625 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Andrew L. Youngquist, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. 625 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Co., (“[A]n insurer cannot be held responsible for defense costs incurred prior to the tender of the defense request.”); cf. SCSC Corp., d at 316 (“[F]ormal tender of a defense request is a condition precedent to the recovery of attorney fees that a party incurs defending claims that a third party