Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Regie De L'Assurance Automobile Du Quebec v. Jensen, 399 N.W.2d 85.

49 citing documents.

Dametria White, et al., as co-trustees for the next-of-kin of Helayne Bass, deceased, Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-89 (Minn. 1987) (concluding that a surviving spouse, “not having been appointed trustee, had no right .
Keith D Hagfors, as Trustee for the Next of Kin of Sara E Hagfors, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“where [it] held that because appointment of a trustee was a condition precedent to bringing a wrongful death action under Minn. Stat. § 573.02, an action filed without it was a ‘legal nullity.’” Ortiz, d at 122-23.
In re: the Matter of the Le Duc Living Trust. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding that, because a non-trustee lacks standing to bring a wrongful-death suit, a non- trustee’s filing of the action was a nullity).
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
Metro Building Companies v. RAM Buildings, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Explained Metro Building Companies v. RAM Buildings, Inc. 783 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-92 (Minn.1987) (concluding that failure to have a valid trustee appointed in a wrongful-death action rendered the suit a nullity).
Miklas v. Parrott 684 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 2004
Miklas v. Parrott 684 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 2004
Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park 682 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park 682 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
the city also argues that the time limitation for the initiation of actions under Minn.Stat.
State Farm v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 678 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State Farm v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 678 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
1878, c. 77, § 2); see Regie de l’assurance Auto, (noting Gen.
Haugland v. Mapleview Lounge & Bottleshop, Inc. 666 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2003
Haugland v. Mapleview Lounge & Bottleshop, Inc. 666 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2003
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Nash 651 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Nash 651 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
“[I]f the subrogor lacks standing to maintain an action, so also does the subro-gee.” Regie de l’
Haugland v. Mapleview Lounge Bottleshop, Inc. 643 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Haugland v. Mapleview Lounge Bottleshop, Inc. 643 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
The supreme court concluded its analysis by explaining that strict compliance with the wrongful-death statute is the underpinning of its decision in Regie de I’as *622 surance Auto, where it held that because appointment of a trustee was a condition precedent to bringing a wrongful-death action, an action filed without it was a “legal nullity.” Id.
Van Slooten v. Estate of Schneider-Janzen 623 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Van Slooten v. Estate of Schneider-Janzen 623 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See Regie de l’assurance Auto, (refusing to allow a relation-back amendment to a subrogation claim that should have been brought as a wrongful-death claim by an appointed trustee, finding that the original action was a “legal nullity” and that there was nothing to which the attempted amendment could relate back).
Lingel v. Olbin 8 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Ortiz Ex Rel. Ortiz v. Gavenda 590 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1999
Ortiz Ex Rel. Ortiz v. Gavenda 590 N.W.2d 119 Minn. 1999
1 statute of limitations, particularly in light of Regie de l’” (emphasis in original).
Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Ortiz v. Gavenda 574 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Citing Regie de l’assurance Auto, the court dismissed the action because Ortiz “had not been duly appointed trustee by the court” within the three-year limitations period.
Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center 544 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center 544 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(citing In re Appointment of Trustee for the Heirs of Larsen, 306 Minn. 364, 369 , -75 (1975)).
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Adamson Motors 514 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Adamson Motors 514 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Hershey v. Physicians Health Plan of Minnesota, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Hershey v. Physicians Health Plan of Minnesota, Inc. 498 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
rev’d on other grounds, -8 (Minn.App.1985).
Share Health Plan, Inc. v. Marcotte 495 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Share Health Plan, Inc. v. Marcotte 495 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See, -40 (Minn.App.1986), rev’d on other grounds Pavel v. Norseman Motorcycle Club, Inc., -8 (Minn.App.1985).
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Family Insurance Co. 474 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Family Insurance Co. 474 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 472 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1991
Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 472 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1991
(citing Metropolitan Transit Comm’n v. Bachman’s and Travelers, 310 Minn, at 102, d at 847 )); see also, Regie de L’
Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 460 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 460 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Otherwise, a subrogee may not maintain an action separate from that of the subrogor: the subrogor, having one action, cannot maintain another, and “if the subrogor lacks standing to maintain an action, so also does the subrogee.” Regie de L
Peterson v. Brown 457 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Peterson v. Brown 457 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Jandera v. Lakefield Farmers Union, 150 Minn. 476, 479 , 185 N.W.
Matter of Wrongful Death of Carlson 427 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Matter of Wrongful Death of Carlson 427 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1988
Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1988
Thompson v. United Truck Body Co. 415 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Thompson v. United Truck Body Co. 415 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the Minnesota Supreme Court held: Simply because the trustee may have an interest in the outcome of the case or in the recovery does not denote incompetency to serve as trustee.