Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Oanes v. Allstate Insurance Co., 617 N.W.2d 401.
-
Miklas v. Parrott
684 N.W.2d 458
Minn. 2004
Co., O’Neill v. Illinois Farmers Ins.
- Entzion v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 675 N.W.2d 925 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
Entzion v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.
675 N.W.2d 925
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Co., -407 (Minn.2000) (underinsured motorist); -78 (Minn.App.1999) (uninsured motorist).
- Busch v. Advanced Maintenance 659 N.W.2d 772 Minn. 2003
-
Busch v. Advanced Maintenance
659 N.W.2d 772
Minn. 2003
Co., (presenting court with compelling reason sufficient to override .
- Home Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh 658 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 2003
- Home Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh 658 N.W.2d 522 Minn. 2003
- Noske v. Friedberg 656 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
Noske v. Friedberg
656 N.W.2d 409
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Co., the Minnesota Supreme Court considered and rejected a similar procedure for addressing a similar policy conflict that arose in an action seeking underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits.
- Zettler v. Ventura 649 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 2002
- Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
- Putz v. Putz 645 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2002
- State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
Followed
State v. DeShay
645 N.W.2d 185
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Co., (citation omitted).
- Dohney v. Allstate Insurance Co. 632 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 2001
-
Dohney v. Allstate Insurance Co.
632 N.W.2d 598
Minn. 2001
Co., we reaffirmed our support of the Schmidt rule as an accommodation of the interests of both the UIM insurer and the insured and stated that the notice and substitution process “protects both the UIM claimant’s ability to settle with the tortfeasor and also the UIM insurer’s subrogation interest.” , 407 n. 3 (Minn.2000).