Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McIntosh v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 488 N.W.2d 476.

51 citing documents.

Depositors Ins. Co. v. Dollansky 919 N.W.2d 684 Minn. 2018
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
Explained State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss 872 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 2015
Co., (“Uninsured motorist coverage is not no- *537 fault coverage; fault on the part of the uninsured motorist must be proven under tort law.”).
Karla Coltrain v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Karla Coltrain v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Co., (holding that (1) for purposes of UM benefits claims, an accident must be viewed from the perspective of the tortfeasor, and (2) an insured who was injured when she was shot by an uninsured third party was not entitled to UM benefits because the shooting was not an accident).
Jon P. Hanbury, individually and as father and natural guardian of Andrew and Nick Hanbury v. American Family … 865 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jon P. Hanbury, individually and as father and natural guardian of Andrew and Nick Hanbury v. American Family … 865 N.W.2d 83 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Co., 10 (Minn. 1992) (stating that those who pay premiums into a pool for insured motorist coverage do not “expect those funds to be available to pay compensation for injuries for which, if the uninsured motorist were insured, his insurance company would not have to pa
Latterell v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. 801 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2011
Latterell v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co. 801 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2011
Co., (stating that uninsured motorist coverage, which is similar to UIM coverage, is “[a]r-guably ...
Marchio v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 747 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marchio v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. 747 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
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
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
Co., when it stated, “[t]o be eligible for no-fault benefits [the insured] must also, of course, meet the use requirement established in Klug by proving that her injury resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle.” Although this statement could be characterized as dicta, this court
Miklas v. Parrott 684 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 2004
Miklas v. Parrott 684 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 2004
Miklas v. Parrott 663 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Miklas v. Parrott 663 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Co., (citation omitted) (holding that uninsured-motorist-coverage provider is not true first party to a liability claim and that whether an event is an “accident” triggering liability is viewed from perspective of the tortfeasor).
American Family Insurance Co. v. Walser 628 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2001
American Family Insurance Co. v. Walser 628 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2001
Braginsky v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 624 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Braginsky v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 624 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Nygaard v. State Farm Insurance Co. 591 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Nygaard v. State Farm Insurance Co. 591 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co., (citing Weis v. State Farm Mut.
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
Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
McGoff v. AMCO Insurance Co. 575 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
McGoff v. AMCO Insurance Co. 575 N.W.2d 118 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Suchy v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Suchy v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. 574 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Co., where the court stated that the purpose of UIM coverage is to protect a plaintiff against the risk that defendant driver is underinsured and unable to pay plaintiffs damages.
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
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
Co., (court separately considered term “accident” with regard to uninsured motorist coverage and no-fault benefits coverage); see also Continental Western Ins.
Beaudry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 518 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1994
Beaudry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 518 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 1994
Recently, we discussed the nature of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.
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
Co., and requires reversal.
National Family Insurance v. Bunton 509 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
National Family Insurance v. Bunton 509 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v. H & W Motor Express Co. 507 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v. H & W Motor Express Co. 507 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Beaudry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 506 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Beaudry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 506 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Dornfeld v. Oberg 491 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Dornfeld v. Oberg 491 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Junker v. Allstate Insurance Co. 489 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1992