Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite L & H TRANSP., INC. v. Drew Agency, Inc., 403 N.W.2d 223.

40 citing documents.

Aspenwood Condominium of Duluth, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
An insurer ’s conduct can estop the assertion of a time limitation contained in an insurance policy if the facts show that it would be “unjust, inequitable, or unconscionable to allow the defense to be interposed.” L & H Transport , Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., (citation omitted).
Steven W. Trisco, et al., Appellants, vs. County of Douglas, Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Melrose Gates, -22 (Minn. 2016); L & H Transp., Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc.
Allan Fishel, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“When an insurance policy contains a suit limitations clause which requires suit to be brought within a certain period, failure to bring suit within that period bars suit unless the limitation clause conflicts with a specific statute or is unreasonably short.” L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc.
Lions Park Apartments, LLC v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lions Park Apartments, LLC v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When an insurance clause requires suit to be brought within a certain period, failure to bring suit within that period bars suit if the limitation clause does not conflict with a specific statute and is not unreasonable in length.” L&H Transp., Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc.
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 797 N.W.2d 18 Minn. 2011
The court of appeals, relying on our opinion in L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., adopted a test for determining whether estoppel is a question of fact or a question of law.
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 784 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
City of North Oaks v. Sarpal 784 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
r equitable estoppel is a factual or legal inquiry and “reconciled the apparent discrepancy regarding the nature of equitable estoppel with the supreme court’s statement that ‘[w]hile es-toppel is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury, when only one inference can be drawn from the facts, the question is one of law.’ ” d at 331 (quoting L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., ).
American Family Insurance Group v. Kiess 697 N.W.2d 617 Minn. 2005
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
See L & H Transp., Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., see also Ruud, d at 372 (holding statement too indefinite to be a promise as a matter of law).
Oreck v. Harvey Homes, Inc. 602 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Oreck v. Harvey Homes, Inc. 602 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
But, “when only one inference can be drawn from the facts, the question is one of law.” L & H Transp., Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc.
Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 584 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1998
Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey 584 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1998
L & H Transp., Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc.
Group Health, Inc. v. Heuer 499 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Group Health, Inc. v. Heuer 499 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc.
In Re the Welfare of M.D.O. 462 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1990
In Re the Welfare of M.D.O. 462 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 1990
See L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc.
Peoples State Bank of Wells v. Lutteke 445 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Peoples State Bank of Wells v. Lutteke 445 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., ().
Matter of Westling Mfg., Inc. 442 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Matter of Westling Mfg., Inc. 442 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., (citation omitted)
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
L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., ().
E.S.P., Inc. v. Midway National Bank of St. Paul 437 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
E.S.P., Inc. v. Midway National Bank of St. Paul 437 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., ().
United States Leasing Corp. v. Biba Information Processing Services, Inc. 436 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
United States Leasing Corp. v. Biba Information Processing Services, Inc. 436 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
“While estoppel is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury, when only one inference can be drawn from the facts, the question is one of law.” L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., ().
Henning v. Village of Prior Lake 435 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Henning v. Village of Prior Lake 435 N.W.2d 627 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., ().
Ballavance v. Safeco Insurance Co. 432 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ballavance v. Safeco Insurance Co. 432 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
L&H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., ().
Anderson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 427 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Anderson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. 427 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc., ().
Fladager v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Fladager v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc.
Parsons v. Parsons 413 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Parsons v. Parsons 413 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
L & H Transport, Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc.