Estes v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Estes v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

365 N.W.2d 769, 1985 Minn. LEXIS 1036

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 12, 1985

DocketCX-84-1133

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 365 N.W.2d 769 (Estes v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estes v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 365 N.W.2d 769, 1985 Minn. LEXIS 1036 (Mich. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs-petitioners Samuel E. and Jean A. Estes seek further review of a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court and concluding that a provision contained in the policy of insurance issued by the defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company was unambiguous. 358 N.W.2d 123. We grant the petition and modify the decision of the Court of Appeals.

It is our view that the Court of Appeals went beyond the record in directing the trial court to modify the judgment to return to State Farm any “excess amounts paid.” While the parties did stipulate that the actual cost of full replacement of the Estes’ damaged roof was $13,000 and while the record does demonstrate that State Farm had paid $18,142.40 toward the repairs based upon two estimates, State Farm did not raise the issue of overpayment in its pleadings. State Farm did not counterclaim for a return of the alleged overpayments, and its answer states only that the payments “constitute an accord and satisfaction and full performance by the defendant.” Further, the record does not indicate that the issue was tried by the express or implied consent of the parties. Minn.R.Civ.P. 15.02. We therefore grant the petition for further review for the limited purpose of modifying the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Petition granted; decision of the Court of Appeals modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs-petitioners Samuel E. and Jean A. Estes seek further review of a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court and concluding that a provision contained in the policy of insurance issued by the defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company was unambiguous. 358 N.W.2d 123. We grant the petition and modify the decision of the Court of Appeals.

It is our view that the Court of Appeals went beyond the record in directing the trial court to modify the judgment to return to State Farm any “excess amounts paid.” While the parties did stipulate that the actual cost of full replacement of the Estes’ damaged roof was $13,000 and while the record does demonstrate that State Farm had paid $18,142.40 toward the repairs based upon two estimates, State Farm did not raise the issue of overpayment in its pleadings. State Farm did not counterclaim for a return of the alleged overpayments, and its answer states only that the payments “constitute an accord and satisfaction and full performance by the defendant.” Further, the record does not indicate that the issue was tried by the express or implied consent of the parties. Minn.R.Civ.P. 15.02. We therefore grant the petition for further review for the limited purpose of modifying the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Petition granted; decision of the Court of Appeals modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 N.W.2d 769, 1985 Minn. LEXIS 1036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estes-v-state-farm-fire-casualty-co-minn-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack