Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rusthoven v. Commercial Standard Insurance Co., 387 N.W.2d 642.

43 citing documents.

Charlotte Copiskey, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Lang Fur Farms, Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Co., claimed the majority had abandoned the Atwater reasonable- expectations-regardless-of-ambiguity doctrine, (3) the result was uncertainty as to “how the reasonable expectations doctrine applie[d] in a case where the provision at issue is clear and unambiguous,” and (4) this court declined “to apply
Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners’ Association, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. 913 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 2018
Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. 913 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 2018
Co. , , 645 (Minn. 1986) ("One of the ancient principles of contract law is that an ambiguous contract, especially an adhesion contract, is construed against the drafter."); Lowry v. Kneeland , 263 Minn. 537 , , 210 (1962) ("It is elementary that if there is doubt as to [a contract's] meaning it must be const
Economy Premier Assurance Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 839 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Economy Premier Assurance Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 839 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Co., (citing the Restatement and applying it in an insurance coverage dispute).
Norton v. Tri-State Insurance Co. of Minnesota 590 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Norton v. Tri-State Insurance Co. of Minnesota 590 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co., , 644 n. 1 (Minn.1986)); Minn.Stat.
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
Co., (ambiguous insurance policy is to be construed in favor of insured).
O'Shaughnessy v. Smuckler Corp. 543 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
O'Shaughnessy v. Smuckler Corp. 543 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
American Commerce Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. 535 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
American Commerce Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co. 535 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
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
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Metcalf 501 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Metcalf 501 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Crapson v. Home Insurance Co. 495 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Crapson v. Home Insurance Co. 495 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Garrick v. Northland Insurance Co. 469 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1991
Garrick v. Northland Insurance Co. 469 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1991
in situations where, as here, “the policy itself sets the limit of the insurer’s liability as the sum of the limits applicable to each covered vehicle, there is no necessity to resort to the stacking principle.
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
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
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Crow 451 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Crow 451 N.W.2d 898 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
644 n. 1 (Minn.1986), the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that the language of the Northwestern policy establishes a single policy limit, and “ * * * there is no necessity to resort to the stacking principle.” See also Rusthoven v. Commercial Standard Ins.
Hubred v. Control Data Corp. 442 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1989
Hubred v. Control Data Corp. 442 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1989
Austin Mutual Insurance Co. v. Templin 435 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Austin Mutual Insurance Co. v. Templin 435 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Commonly called “stacking,” this process of adding coverages together occurs when a court orders the “pyramiding of separate first-party coverages attributable to two or more vehicles despite policy language prohibiting stacking.” , 644 n. 1 (Minn.1986) (emphasis added).
Morris v. Weiss 414 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Morris v. Weiss 414 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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
(one of the fundamentals of insurance law is that ambiguous language in an insurance policy is to be construed in favor of the insured); (a com
Park v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 396 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Park v. Government Employees Insurance Co. 396 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Curtis v. Home Insurance Co. 392 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Curtis v. Home Insurance Co. 392 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
ANALYSIS The Minnesota Supreme Court recently decided a
Merseth v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 390 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Merseth v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. 390 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1986

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by