Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Klug, 415 N.W.2d 876.

93 citing documents.

In RE the Arbritration of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Candice Martinez, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-78 (Minn. 1987) (explaining that this question is a “legal issue” and that the causation standard is “something less than proximate cause” (quotation omitted)); Kemmerer v. State Farm Ins.
John Arthur Olson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Co. v. Klug , -78 (Minn. 1987) .
Nancy Bach, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Brian Pettey, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sandra Castillo as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jose Luis Estrada-Martinez v. American Standard Insurance Company of … 889 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sandra Castillo as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jose Luis Estrada-Martinez v. American Standard Insurance Company of … 889 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, judgment creditor, Respondent/Co-Appellant v. Justin Beauchane, Judgment Debtor, and North Star Mutual … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, judgment creditor, Respondent/Co-Appellant v. Justin Beauchane, Judgment Debtor, and North Star Mutual … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Randall Dahler v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Randall Dahler v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
the district court determined that the syndrome did not arise out of the maintenance or use of an automobile.
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Marvin 707 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Marvin 707 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-78 (Minn.1987) (stating that the determination of whether an accident arose out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle is a legal issue that turns on the particular facts presented in each case).
Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 699 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2005
Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 699 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 2005
In Continental Western Insurance Co. v. Klug, we stated that whether “an accident arises out of the use or maintenance of an automobile is a recurring question which defies a simple test.”
Alexis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 696 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Alexis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 696 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
On May 26, 2004, the parties waived their right to a had been met.
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Great West Casualty 695 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Great West Casualty 695 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 683 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. 683 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Minnesota Property Insurance v. Slater 673 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Minnesota Property Insurance v. Slater 673 N.W.2d 194 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-79 (Minn.1987) (reviewing de novo interpretation of insurance policy and application of policy to the facts).
Stout v. AMCO Insurance Co. 645 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 2002
Stout v. AMCO Insurance Co. 645 N.W.2d 108 Minn. 2002
Pususta v. State Farm Insurance Companies 632 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2001
Pususta v. State Farm Insurance Companies 632 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 2001
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust 617 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Steinfeldt v. AMCO Insurance Co. 592 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Steinfeldt v. AMCO Insurance Co. 592 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 588 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1999
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 588 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1999
Tillery v. League General Insurance Co. 584 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Tillery v. League General Insurance Co. 584 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 580 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 580 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sullivan v. City of Minneapolis 570 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Sullivan v. City of Minneapolis 570 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
: [T]he vehicle must be an “active accessory” in causing the injury.
Medicine Lake Bus Co. v. Smith 554 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Medicine Lake Bus Co. v. Smith 554 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
v. Klug, (vehicle was active accessory to injury when co-employee drove next to insured’s vehicle and shot insured); Haagenson v. National Farmers Union Property Cas.
Allied Mutual Insurance Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 536 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Allied Mutual Insurance Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 536 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
must be used to determine whether a person was occupying a motor vehicle under Minn.Stat.
AMCO Insurance v. Ashwood-Ames 534 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
AMCO Insurance v. Ashwood-Ames 534 N.W.2d 740 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
v. Klug, , 879 *742 (Minn.1987).
Kern v. Auto Owners Insurance Co. 526 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kern v. Auto Owners Insurance Co. 526 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Benike v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 520 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Benike v. Dairyland Insurance Co. 520 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
v. King, -78 (Minn.1987)).
LaValley v. National Family Insurance Corp. 517 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
LaValley v. National Family Insurance Corp. 517 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1994

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by