Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Galloway, 373 N.W.2d 301.
- American Family Insurance, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- Russell v. Haji-Ali 826 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-
Russell v. Haji-Ali
826 N.W.2d 216
Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(noting that injured claimants commonly collect UM benefits, subject to the insurer’s subrogation rights, before commencing an action against the uninsured motorist).
- Sheung Kwong v. Depositors Insurance Co. 627 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 2001
-
Sheung Kwong v. Depositors Insurance Co.
627 N.W.2d 52
Minn. 2001
Contrary to the court of appeals’ conclusion, does not require a different result.
- Sheung Kwong v. Depositors Insurance Co. 612 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- Sheung Kwong v. Depositors Insurance Co. 612 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
- Ruddy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 596 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-
Ruddy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
596 N.W.2d 679
Minn. Ct. App. 1999
that an uninsured motorist carrier could be prejudiced by a claimant’s settlement with the uninsured motorist.
- 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
Shantz v. Richview, Inc., Smith v. Zufelt, 880 P.2d 1178, 1181, 1186 (Colo.1994); Haderlie v. Sondgeroth, 866 P.2d 703, 711 (Wyo.1993).
- Hermeling v. Minnesota Fire & Casualty Co. 548 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1996
- Hermeling v. Minnesota Fire & Casualty Co. 548 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1996
- Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Starkey 535 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 1995
-
Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Starkey
535 N.W.2d 363
Minn. 1995
holding that a post-verdict settlement in exchange for a Pi-erringer release did not preclude Starkey from collecting UM benefits where there was no evidence of collusion.
- Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Starkey 524 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Starkey 524 N.W.2d 491 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- Dornfeld v. Oberg 491 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- Dornfeld v. Oberg 491 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
- McIntosh v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 488 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1992
- Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pagel 439 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pagel 439 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Ketterling v. American States Insurance Co. 415 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
Ketterling v. American States Insurance Co.
415 N.W.2d 106
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(footnote omitted) (“a reparation obligor may assert a subrogation claim to recover basic economic loss benefits paid only when the insured has received a double recovery”); , 304 n. 1 (Minn.1985) (an uninsured motorist carrier may assert a subrogation claim, “provided the claimant has first been made whole”).
- Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 407 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 407 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- Klang v. American Family Insurance Group 398 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Klang v. American Family Insurance Group
398 N.W.2d 49
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
As support for her position, she cites this court’s aff'd
- Great American Insurance Co. v. Sticha 374 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Great American Insurance Co. v. Sticha 374 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Hamberg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 374 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Hamberg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
374 N.W.2d 460
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the court held that an insurance policy provision, identical to the one in question here, was invalid because it imposed an impermissible condition on uninsured motorist coverage contrary to the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn.Stat.