Horace Mann Insurance Company v. Westenfield

496 N.W.2d 410, 1993 Minn. LEXIS 193, 1993 WL 84936
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided March 16, 1993·No. C5-92-792·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Company for further review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals be, and the same is, granted, the decision is reversed and the judgment entered in the trial court in favor of the petitioner Minnesota Mutual is reinstated.

MEMORANDUM

The decision of the court of appeals has confused and therefore misapplied principles of No-Fault first-party coverage to *411 this question which only involves third-party liability coverage. Our decision in West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. v. Milwaukee Mutual Ins. Co., 384 N.W.2d 877 (Minn.1986) is controlling and dispositive.

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

Horace Mann Insurance Company v. Westenfield, 496 N.W.2d 410, 1993 Minn. LEXIS 193, 1993 WL 84936 (Mich. 1993).

496 N.W.2d 410 (Horace Mann Insurance Company v. Westenfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lobeck v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
582 N.W.2d 246 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1998)