Cited by

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

225 citing documents.

Engel v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 455 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Engel v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 455 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
ANALYSIS I. Engel first claims that the notice provision of the policy is ambiguous because it fails to specify a penalty for failure of compliance and that the “reasonable expectations doctrine” should apply.
American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Employers' of Wausau 454 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Employers' of Wausau 454 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Mikulay v. Home Indemnity Co. 449 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mikulay v. Home Indemnity Co. 449 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Gabrielson v. Warnemunde 443 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1989
Gabrielson v. Warnemunde 443 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1989
Co., (facts may give rise to a duty to offer additional coverage).
Hubred v. Control Data Corp. 442 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1989
Hubred v. Control Data Corp. 442 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1989
Empire State Bank of Cottonwood v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 441 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Empire State Bank of Cottonwood v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 441 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The trial court did not address this issue because Empire did not raise it in its trial brief or cite the landmark Minnesota Supreme Court case, which adopted that doctrine.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Levinson 438 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Levinson 438 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
National City Bank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
National City Bank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 435 N.W.2d 57 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“The doctrine of protecting the reasonable expectations of the insured is closely related to the doctrine of contracts of adhesion.”
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Wasmuth 432 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Wasmuth 432 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-77 (Minn.1985) (citing Keeton, Insurance Law Rights at Variance with Policy Provisions, 83 Harv.L.Rev.
Wondra v. American Family Insurance Group 432 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wondra v. American Family Insurance Group 432 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(citing Keeton, Insurance Law Rights at Variance with Policy Provisions, 83 Harv.L.Rev.
Gabrielson v. Warnemunde 430 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Gabrielson v. Warnemunde 430 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Seaway Port Authority of Duluth v. Midland Insurance Co. 430 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Seaway Port Authority of Duluth v. Midland Insurance Co. 430 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Born v. Medico Life Insurance Co. 428 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Born v. Medico Life Insurance Co. 428 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Mutual Service Insurance Co. 422 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Mutual Service Insurance Co. 422 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(an insured could reasonably expect to be covered for loss from a burglary performed by a thief having skill to do the job without leaving signs of forcible entry).
Centennial Insurance Co. v. Zylberberg 422 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Centennial Insurance Co. v. Zylberberg 422 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Schmidt v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. 413 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Schmidt v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. 413 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hertog v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 415 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hertog v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 415 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Morris v. Weiss 414 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Morris v. Weiss 414 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In an attempt to avoid the mechanical and sometimes unrealistic function of these two competing rules of construction
Amatuzio v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 409 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Amatuzio v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 409 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ross v. City of Minneapolis 408 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ross v. City of Minneapolis 408 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court held that the reasonable expectations doctrine may be applied even where the terms of a contract are not ambiguous.
Casablanca Concerts, Inc. v. American National General Agencies, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Casablanca Concerts, Inc. v. American National General Agencies, Inc. 407 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
see also Comment, Great Expectations for the Reasonable Expectations Doctrine, 12 Wm.
Campbell v. Valley State Agency 407 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Campbell v. Valley State Agency 407 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Johnson v. Urie 405 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1987
Johnson v. Urie 405 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1987
More recently, we recognized that there may exist a common law duty of an agent to affirmatively offer optional coverages notwithstanding the customer has not clearly requested such coverage.
Seaton v. County of Scott 404 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Seaton v. County of Scott 404 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lysholm v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 404 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lysholm v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 404 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 1987