Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co., 366 N.W.2d 271.

225 citing documents.

Independent School District No. 197 v. Accident & Casualty Insurance of Winterthur 525 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Co., ); see generally Gerald J. Morris, Comment, Great Expectations for the Reasonable Expectations Doctrine, 12 Wm.
Eiynk v. Sabrowsky 524 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Eiynk v. Sabrowsky 524 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Northern States Power Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 523 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1994
Northern States Power Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York 523 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 1994
Co., -77 (Minn.1985); Nordby v. Atlantic Mut.
Board of Regents v. Royal Insurance Co. of America 517 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1994
Overruled Board of Regents v. Royal Insurance Co. of America 517 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 1994
however, has no place here, and the contrary ruling of Grin-nell is overruled.
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Johannessen 516 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Johannessen 516 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Lessard v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 514 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 1994
Lessard v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. 514 N.W.2d 556 Minn. 1994
Porta-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. First Insurance East Grand Forks 512 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Porta-Mix Concrete, Inc. v. First Insurance East Grand Forks 512 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Co., (facts may give rise to a duty to offer additional coverage).
Krueger v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 510 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Krueger v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 510 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Co., (where insurance policy provision directly conflicts with statute, policy’s conformity clause substitutes statutory provision for policy provision).
Daybreak Foods, Inc. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 508 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Daybreak Foods, Inc. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 508 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Metcalf 501 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
D.W.H. Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Steele 494 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
D.W.H. Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Steele 494 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Coppa 494 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Coppa 494 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Manderfeld 482 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Manderfeld 482 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Beauty Craft Supply & Equipment Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 479 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Beauty Craft Supply & Equipment Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. 479 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka 474 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wicka 474 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 1991
HIGGINS ON BEHALF OF HIGGINS v. Winter 474 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
HIGGINS ON BEHALF OF HIGGINS v. Winter 474 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Co., the supreme court determined: Where the acts or omissions complained of are within the general knowledge and experience of lay persons, expert testimony is not necessary to establish a standard of care, even in cases of alleged medical malpractice.
American National Fire Insurance Co. v. Estate of Fournelle 472 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1991
American National Fire Insurance Co. v. Estate of Fournelle 472 N.W.2d 292 Minn. 1991
Co., Nordby v. Atlantic Mut.
Garrick v. Northland Insurance Co. 469 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1991
Garrick v. Northland Insurance Co. 469 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1991
Glarner v. Time Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Glarner v. Time Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Levin v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 465 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Levin v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 465 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(“[NJothing in our opinion in Atwater [] suggests that the doctrine of reasonable-expectations is not to be applied except in the presence of peculiar circumstances such as ambiguity or a hidden exclusion.”); Centennial Ins.
Sicoli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Sicoli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 464 N.W.2d 300 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Garrick v. Northland Insurance Co. 460 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Garrick v. Northland Insurance Co. 460 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Grossman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 461 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Grossman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 461 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rivers v. Richard Schwartz/Neil Weber, Inc. 459 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rivers v. Richard Schwartz/Neil Weber, Inc. 459 N.W.2d 166 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
National Indemnity Co. of Minnesota v. Ness 457 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Peterson v. Brown 457 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Peterson v. Brown 457 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Johnson v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank, -93 (Minn.App.1986), pet.
National Indemnity Co. of Minnesota v. Ness 457 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1990