Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Board of Regents v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 517 N.W.2d 888.

52 citing documents.

Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
Thaleaha McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. Minn. 2025
Co. of Am., (“The sense of a word depends on how it is being used; only if more than one meaning applies within that context does ambiguity arise.”).
Minn. 2025
Co. of Am., (“The sense of a word depends on how it is being used; only if more than one meaning applies within that context does ambiguity arise.”).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Anthony Blake Swope Minn. 2025
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Anthony Blake Swope Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Clifford Robert Letourneau, III, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Clifford Robert Letourneau, III, Appellant Minn. 2025
Minn. 2025
Steve Quest v. Nicholas Robert Rekieta Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Steve Quest v. Nicholas Robert Rekieta Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Co. of Am., aff’d on other grounds, rev’d on other grounds
In re Jeffrey Krogstad, M.D., et al., Petitioners, Minn. 2021
In the Matter of the Petition of Valet Living for a Declaration that Interpretation Titled Corridor Trash Collection … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“Because a word has more 2 “Ejusdem generis, as codified in Minn. Stat. § 645.08, subd.
Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners’ Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Crow Wing Cooperative Power and Light Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Co. of Am., (“Because a word has more than one meaning does not mean it is ambiguous.”).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
The district court, court of appeals, and parties cite to our interpretation of “operating” in West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“The sense of a word depends on how it is being used; only if more than one meaning applies within that context does ambiguity arise.”).
State v. Thonesavanh 904 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 2017
Jeffrey Alan Brouse v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeffrey Alan Brouse v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Co. of Am., -94 (Minn. 1994) (concluding that the exclusion provision applied to asbestos even though asbestos was not specifically mentioned in the provision); Auto-Owners Ins.
Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wolters 831 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2013
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wolters 831 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2013
Although we have considered the scope of a -93 (Minn.1994), we have never addressed the scope of the absolute pollution exclusion.
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Co. of Am., (“Because a word has more than one meaning does not mean it is ambiguous.
Carlson v. Allstate Insurance Co. 749 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 2008
Carlson v. Allstate Insurance Co. 749 N.W.2d 41 Minn. 2008
Frey v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 743 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Frey v. United Services Automobile Ass'n 743 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Co. of Am., Merseth v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Harrison Ex Rel. Harrison v. Harrison 733 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2007
In Re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater 731 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2007
In Re the Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater 731 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2007
Wakefield Pork, Inc. v. Ram Mutual Insurance Co. 731 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Wakefield Pork, Inc. v. Ram Mutual Insurance Co. 731 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Co. of Am., appellant argues that the pollution exclusion only applies to release of pollution into the atmosphere and not pollution of the air inside the Wendingers’ home.
Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A. v. Lipetzky 661 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Bank Midwest, Minnesota, Iowa, N.A. v. Lipetzky 661 N.W.2d 290 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp. 630 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Co. of Amer., -91 (Minn.App.1993) (citation omitted), aff'd in part, rev’d in part
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Wilson Township 603 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. v. Wilson Township 603 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co. of Am., (rejecting redundant interpretation of policy language).
Amos Ex Rel. Amos v. Campbell 593 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Amos Ex Rel. Amos v. Campbell 593 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Hanson Ex Rel. DeMoss 588 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Hanson Ex Rel. DeMoss 588 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Walker v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 569 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Walker v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 569 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Co. of Am., (reasonable expectation doctrine is not license to rewrite policy “to conform to a result that the insured might prefer”).
Landico, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Landico, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Anderson v. Minnesota Ins. Guar. Ass'n 534 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1995
Anderson v. Minnesota Ins. Guar. Ass'n 534 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1995