Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schmidt v. Clothier, 338 N.W.2d 256.

182 citing documents.

Boehm v. Citizens Security Mutual Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Boehm v. Citizens Security Mutual Insurance Co. 414 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The Boehms thereafter contacted their own insurer, Citizens, and advised it that it could protect its subrogation and contribution claims by tendering $62,500
Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 413 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 413 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Second, while it is true under this interpretation claimants will go to UIM carriers first for compensation
Clark v. Allstate Insurance Co. 405 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Clark v. Allstate Insurance Co. 405 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
1099, 1102 (U.S.D.Minn.1981; (Minnesota public policy does not favor extension of release to preclude underinsured recovery).
Klang v. American Family Insurance Group 398 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Klang v. American Family Insurance Group 398 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
On appeal, American Family contends that Klang’s claim for underinsured motorist benefits is barred because she settled with the underinsured tortfeasor without notifying it as required by the policy of insurance *50
Regie De L'Assurance Automobile Du Quebec v. Jensen 389 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Regie De L'Assurance Automobile Du Quebec v. Jensen 389 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
O'Neill v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1986
O'Neill v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 1986
Aside from the fact that policy provisions requiring an exhaustion of remedies against the tortfeasor are not a bar to an underinsured motorist benefits claim, steps taken by a claimant in ascertaining what underinsured motorist benefits she might be entitled to, do not preclude the statute of limitations from beginning to run.
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Orr 379 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Orr 379 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Vaccari, 310 Minn. 97, 101
Hedlund v. Citizens Security Mutual Insurance Co. 377 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hedlund v. Citizens Security Mutual Insurance Co. 377 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the supreme court held that an underinsurer is liable only for the damages suffered by the insured which are in excess of the liability limits of the defendant.
Great American Insurance Co. v. Sticha 374 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Great American Insurance Co. v. Sticha 374 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
in negotiating settlements by notifying Great American in writing of State Farm’s settlement offer.
Siebels v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 374 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Siebels v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 374 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The right of subrogation granted by statute “is a limited, not absolute, right that comes into existence only after the insurer has paid benefits to its insured * *
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Galloway 373 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1985
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Galloway 373 N.W.2d 301 Minn. 1985
If the “consent to settlement” clause is not enforceable here, State Farm asks that we protect its inchoate subrogation right by adopting a
Osterdyke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Osterdyke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 371 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(the underinsurer’s liability depends not on the settlement but rather on the readily ascertainable liability limit of the defendant).
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Kraayenbrink 370 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Kraayenbrink 370 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Ballanger v. Toenjes 362 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Ballanger v. Toenjes 362 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Appellant argues that it is liable only for Ballanger’s damages in excess of the $25,000 individual liability limit of the tortfeasor
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Galloway 354 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Galloway 354 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Milbradt v. American Legion Post of Mora 354 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Milbradt v. American Legion Post of Mora 354 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
in which the Supreme Court observed that subrogation rights depend on “general principles of equity and the nature of the contract of insurance.” d at 262 .