Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Milbrandt v. American Legion Post of Mora, 372 N.W.2d 702.

37 citing documents.

American Family Insurance, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Legion Post of Mora , -06 (Minn. 1985)).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A14-132), (A14-224) v. Angela Mary Lennartson, (A14-132), Katie Foss, (A14-224). 857 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A14-132), (A14-224) v. Angela Mary Lennartson, (A14-132), Katie Foss, (A14-224). 857 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Legion Post of Mora, d 702, 705 (Minn. 1985) (“[The insurer] has a duty to pay basic economic loss benefits to its insured without regard to fault.”).
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 779 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 2010
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 779 N.W.2d 853 Minn. 2010
LeBeau v. John Deere Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
LeBeau v. John Deere Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Great West Casualty Co. v. Northland Insurance Co. 548 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1996
Great West Casualty Co. v. Northland Insurance Co. 548 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 1996
we clearly set forth the principle that subrogation in the no-fault context is exclusively a creature of statute: “subrogation rights, because they are based upon the concept of fault, directly impact upon the operation of a no-fault system.
Great West Casualty Co. v. Northland Insurance 534 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Great West Casualty Co. v. Northland Insurance 534 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Banks v. Grant 530 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Banks v. Grant 530 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Mueller v. Theis 512 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Mueller v. Theis 512 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
The agreement expressly stated that the settlement did not constitute a duplication of benefits paid by Farmers, and Mohs v. Parrish’s Bar
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Family Insurance Co. 474 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Family Insurance Co. 474 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Milbrandt v. *427 American Legion Post of Mora
Principal Financial Group v. Allstate Insurance Co. 472 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Principal Financial Group v. Allstate Insurance Co. 472 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In that context, the right of subrogation arises by virtue of the tort, and is “important * * * to the effective functioning of a fault-based compensation system.” (quoting Note, Subrogation and Indemnity Rights Under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, 4 Wm.
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Vanman 453 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1990
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Vanman 453 N.W.2d 48 Minn. 1990
and Mohs v. Parrish’s Bar
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Vanman 442 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Vanman 442 N.W.2d 351 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
and reiterated in Mohs v. Parrish’s Bar, controlling.
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pagel 439 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pagel 439 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mohs v. Parrish's Bar 418 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1988
Distinguished Mohs v. Parrish's Bar 418 N.W.2d 494 Minn. 1988
The Bars, moved for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Aetna’s subrogation claim.
Gruman v. Hendrickson 416 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gruman v. Hendrickson 416 N.W.2d 497 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court stated the appellant insurance company should have been allowed to intervene when it claimed a subrogation interest in the suit.
Ketterling v. American States Insurance Co. 415 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ketterling v. American States Insurance Co. 415 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(footnote omitted) (“a reparation obligor may assert a subrogation claim to recover basic economic loss benefits paid only when the insured has received a double recovery”); , 304 n. 1 (Minn.1985) (an uninsured motorist carrier may
Peters v. B.P. & E., Inc. 397 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Peters v. B.P. & E., Inc. 397 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Miller v. Astleford Equipment Co., Inc. 378 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Miller v. Astleford Equipment Co., Inc. 378 N.W.2d 820 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the supreme court affirmed summary judgment against an insurer who had brought a subrogation action against a tortfeasor to recover basic economic loss benefits.
Fox v. City of Holdingford 375 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Fox v. City of Holdingford 375 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the supreme court held that the burden is on the insurer to show that the insured has been overcompensated and that, because the right to subrogation provided in subdivision 3 arises only where there is a double recovery, it may be asserted only against the insured.