Mitchell Luskin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, an Illinois Corporation

141 F.3d 1169, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 14419
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 20, 1998
Docket97-2696
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 F.3d 1169 (Mitchell Luskin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, an Illinois Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mitchell Luskin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, an Illinois Corporation, 141 F.3d 1169, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 14419 (8th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

141 F.3d 1169

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that they are not precedent and generally should not be cited unless relevant to establishing the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of the case, or if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue and no published opinion would serve as well.
Mitchell LUSKIN, Appellant,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Appellee.

No. 97-2696MN.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 9, 1998.
Decided Feb. 20, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Before FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This declaratory judgment action concerns a personal liability umbrella policy coverage dispute between Mitchell Luskin and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (State Farm). Luskin brought this action after he was sued by his twelve-year-old son for personal injury damages exceeding the limits of his automobile insurance policy. Relying on a household exclusion in the umbrella policy, State Farm denied coverage and the district court held the household exclusion was valid and enforceable under Minnesota law. Having carefully reviewed the case and having considered de novo the disputed issues of state law, we conclude no error of law appears. As a federal court sitting in diversity, we are in no position to extend Minnesota law, and we thus affirm the decision of the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

*

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation

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

Related

Courtney Godfrey v. State Farm Fire and Casualty
11 F.4th 601 (Eighth Circuit, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 F.3d 1169, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 14419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-luskin-v-state-farm-fire-casualty-company-ca8-1998.