Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gabrielson v. Warnemunde, 443 N.W.2d 540.

34 citing documents.

Josh Campion, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
It is not, however, the jury’s function to determine whether the facts give rise to a duty.” n.1 (Minn. 1989).
Premium Plant Services, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“An insurance agent’s duty is ordinarily limited to the duties imposed in any agency relationship, to act in good faith and follow instructions.”
AgCountry Farm Credit Services, ACA, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An insurer has a duty to exercise the skill and care that a “reasonably prudent person engaged in the insurance business [would] use under similar circumstances.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
David Herzog v. Cottingham & Butler Insurance Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
David Herzog v. Cottingham & Butler Insurance Services, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
see also Louwagie v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Schmitz v. RINKE, NOONAN 783 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
A professional’s admission that he had a responsibility to act in a certain way “is not sufficient to establish that as the standard of care which he has a legal duty to use.”
Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Transport Leasing/Contract, Inc. 671 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Transport Leasing/Contract, Inc. 671 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hebrink v. Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. 664 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hebrink v. Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. 664 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“The standard of care for an insurance agent is to perform at the level of skill of a reasonably prudent person in the insurance business.”
ServiceMaster of St. Cloud v. GAB Business Services, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1996
ServiceMaster of St. Cloud v. GAB Business Services, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 302 Minn. 1996
Southwest Auto Painting & Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld 904 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Treacy v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 517 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1994
Treacy v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 517 N.W.2d 46 Minn. 1994
Reitzner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 510 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Reitzner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 510 N.W.2d 20 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
(citing 16A J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 8836, at 64 (1981)).
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
The Minnesota Supreme Court has recently clarified the insurance agent’s
Twaiten v. Tanke 466 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Twaiten v. Tanke 466 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Arndt v. American Family Mut.
Writers, Inc. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Writers, Inc. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. 465 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Leuer v. Johnson 450 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Leuer v. Johnson 450 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
543 n. 1 (Minn. 1989) examines the roles of the jury and the court: It is not, however, the jury’s function to determine whether the facts give rise to a duty.
Oswald Ex Rel. Thies v. Law 445 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Oswald Ex Rel. Thies v. Law 445 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Hellman v. Julius Kolesar, Inc.