Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Meyer v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Group, 371 N.W.2d 535.
- Jon P. Hanbury, individually and as father and natural guardian of Andrew and Nick Hanbury v. American Family … 865 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
Jon P. Hanbury, individually and as father and natural guardian of Andrew and Nick Hanbury v. American Family …
865 N.W.2d 83
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Grp., (explaining that UIM coverage is different from most forms of first-party coverage because it follows the vehicle and “is intended to protect against .
- Pepper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 813 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 2012
- Pepper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 813 N.W.2d 921 Minn. 2012
- Pepper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 806 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- Pepper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 806 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- George v. Evenson 754 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
- George v. Evenson 754 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
- Kelly v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 666 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 2003
-
Kelly v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
666 N.W.2d 328
Minn. 2003
Group, (holding that an injured individual cannot obtain both liability coverage and underinsured motorist coverage from the same policy).
- Lynch v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 626 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 2001
- Lynch v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 626 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 2001
- Lynch v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 612 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- Lynch v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 612 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. 586 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. 586 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- Lahr v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 528 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-
Lahr v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
528 N.W.2d 257
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Group, a one-vehicle accident, the court noted that an insured should purchase additional liability coverage to protect himself and his passengers against the risk of “his own negligence.” Id.
- Davis v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 521 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- Davis v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 521 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Luhman 438 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
-
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Luhman
438 N.W.2d 453
Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Id.; -655 (Minn.1989) (quoting Myers, d at 291 ); Linder, d at 483 .
- Synstelien v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 418 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Synstelien v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 418 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
- Phillippe v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Phillippe v. Commissioner of Public Safety
374 N.W.2d 293
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
nor their adequacy to accomplish a desired purpose may be taken into consideration by courts in determining what interpretation the laws should have; we must give effect to them as they are, regardless of our personal opinion regarding their adequacy.” Norris Grain Co. v. Seafarers’ Int’l Union, 232 Minn. 91, 109-10 , , 536 *296 (Minn. July 26, 1985).