Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Haarstad v. Graff, 517 N.W.2d 582.

35 citing documents.

Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. 819 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
see also Meadowbrook, d at 418 n. 19.
General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin v. Wozniak Travel, Inc. 762 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2009
General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin v. Wozniak Travel, Inc. 762 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2009
Home Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh 658 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 2003
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 658 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2003
Home Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh 658 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 2003
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 658 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 2003
Thommes v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 641 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 2002
Thommes v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 641 N.W.2d 877 Minn. 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
Thommes v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 622 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Thommes v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 622 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Evergreen, Inc. 608 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Evergreen, Inc. 608 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Zimmerman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 605 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2000
Jirik Ex Rel. Jirik v. AUTO-OWNERS INS. 595 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Jirik Ex Rel. Jirik v. AUTO-OWNERS INS. 595 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
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
More Clinic v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 575 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
More Clinic v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 575 N.W.2d 598 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
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
“The interpretation and construction of an insurance contract is a question of law, subject to de novo review.”
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
ANALYSIS “The interpretation and construction of an insurance contract is a question of law, subject to de novo review.” (citation omitted).
Vetter v. Security Continental Insurance Co. 555 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Vetter v. Security Continental Insurance Co. 555 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(insurance contract interpretation and construction are questions of law, subject to de novo review).
Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 558 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See SCSC, d at 316 (insurer’s obligation to defend is generally decided by comparing language of complaint and any other known facts with policy language; if insurer refuses to defend, party may recover attorneys’ fees from time defense was tendered); -85 (Minn.1994) (when deciding whether to accept tender, insurer may consider facts outside complaint; if those facts establish that claim is not covered, insurer has no duty to defend); Republic Vanguard Ins.
Jenoff, Inc. v. New Hampshire Insurance Co. 545 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Jenoff, Inc. v. New Hampshire Insurance Co. 545 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Ultimately, on appeal, the interpretation and construction of an insurance policy “is a question of law, subject to de novo review.”
Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co. 543 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co. 543 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1996