Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co.

15 Citing cases

  1. Hiltner v. Owners Ins. Co.

    876 N.W.2d 460 (N.D. 2016)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing “legally entitled to collect” from “owner or operator” of underinsured motor vehicle

    See N.D.C.C. § 26.1–40–15.7(5); Jund, 2011 ND 230, ¶ 7, 814 N.W.2d 776; Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co., 2006 ND 198, ¶ 8, 722 N.W.2d 359; DeCoteau v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 ND 3, ¶ 17, 603 N.W.2d 906. The parties in this case do not contend Owners' policy provides greater underinsured coverage than required by statute. The resolution of the certified question before us, therefore, is governed by the statutory scheme providing underinsured coverage.

  2. Jund v. Johnnie B's Bar & Grill, Inc.

    2011 N.D. 230 (N.D. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    SeeN.D.C.C. § 26.1–40–15.7(5); Sandberg v. American Fam. Ins., 2006 ND 198, ¶ 8, 722 N.W.2d 359;DeCoteau v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2000 ND 3, ¶ 17, 603 N.W.2d 906. Here the parties do not contend that Ransom County's underinsured motorist coverage provides greater coverage than required by statute, and the resolution of the issues raised in this appeal requires a description of the statutory scheme for underinsured motorist coverage. [¶ 8] Section 26.1–40–15.

  3. Blasi v. Bruin E&P Partners

    2021 N.D. 86 (N.D. 2021)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Analyzing how oil may be transported by various means and may never reach a commercial pipeline

    [T]his Court should not be asked to answer the [certified] question without the benefit of knowing those facts. Doing so "exposes the judiciary to the danger of improvidently deciding issues and of not sufficiently contemplating ramifications of the opinion," which Justice Crothers has cautioned against in another context. Sandberg v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2006 ND 198,¶ 20, 722 N.W.2d 359 (Crothers, J., concurring specially).

  4. MKB Management Corp. v. Burdick

    2014 N.D. 197 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Upholding the constitutionality of amendments to the state abortion control act that limited medication abortions where two justices determined the law violated the North Dakota Constitution, two justices concluded the law did not violate the state constitution, three justices determined the statute violated the Federal Constitution, one justice concluded the law did not violate the Federal Constitution, and one justice concluded the federal constitutional issue was not properly before the court because there was not a sufficient majority of the court that agreed the law was unconstitutional

    ncurring specially); City of Grafton v. Wosick, 2013 ND 74, ¶ 15, 830 N.W.2d 550 ; City of Mandan v. Strata Corp., 2012 ND 173, ¶¶ 7–8, 819 N.W.2d 557 ; Dorothy J. Pierce Family Mineral Trust v. Jorgenson, 2012 ND 100, ¶ 8, 816 N.W.2d 779 ; Bakke v. D & A Landscaping Co., LLC, 2012 ND 170, ¶ 19, 820 N.W.2d 357 ; State v. Morin, 2012 ND 75, ¶ 16, 815 N.W.2d 229 (Crothers, J., concurring specially); Interest of G.K.S., 2012 ND 17, ¶ 4, 809 N.W.2d 335 ; Brandvold v. Lewis & Clark Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 161, 2011 ND 185, ¶ 8, 803 N.W.2d 827 ; Carlson v. Carlson, 2011 ND 168, ¶ 24, 802 N.W.2d 436 ; In the Matter of the Estate of Vestre, 2011 ND 144, ¶ 26, 799 N.W.2d 379 ; State v. Johnson, 2011 ND 48, ¶ 16, 795 N.W.2d 367 ; Seiler v. North Dakota Dep't of Human Servs., 2010 ND 55, ¶¶ 6–8, 780 N.W.2d 653 ; Saville v. Ude, 2009 ND 211, ¶ 24, 776 N.W.2d 31 ; White v. Altru Health System, 2008 ND 48, ¶ 19, 746 N.W.2d 173 ; Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Assocs., Inc., 2008 ND 12, ¶ 28, 744 N.W.2d 532 ; Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co., 2006 ND 198, ¶¶ 19–21, 722 N.W.2d 359 (Crothers, J., concurring specially). [¶ 164] On the substantive questions regarding constitutionality of the challenged provisions, the district court and the VandeWalle and Kapsner opinions of this Court all acknowledge that our holding here can recognize no less freedom from governmental intrusion than controlling federal constitutional interpretations.

  5. State v. Boehm

    2014 N.D. 154 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 20 times
    Describing statutory standard for requesting preliminary breath test and stating traffic stop for speeding and individual's admission of alcohol consumption meets statutory requirements

    Therefore, this Court's substantive discussion of those claims is dicta and is improperly advisory. See State v. Morin, 2012 ND 75, ¶ 16, 815 N.W.2d 229 (Crothers, J., concurring specially); Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co., 2006 ND 198, ¶¶ 19–21, 722 N.W.2d 359 (Crothers, J., concurring specially). [¶ 29] DANIEL J. CROTHERS SANDSTROM, Justice, concurring specially.

  6. Trosen v. Trosen

    2014 N.D. 7 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 13 times

    Accordingly, this Court's decision on dismissal of the equitable claims is an improper advisory opinion. See Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co., 2006 ND 198, ¶¶ 19–21, 722 N.W.2d 359 (Crothers, J., concurring specially). [¶ 33] Daniel J. Crothers

  7. K&L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.

    2013 N.D. 57 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 29 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Listing state supreme courts reaching this conclusion

    Again, however, that analysis is best left to a case properly developed through the adversarial process. Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co., 2006 ND 198, ¶¶ 19–21, 722 N.W.2d 359 (Crothers, J., concurring specially). [¶ 42] DANIEL J. CROTHERS

  8. Barrett v. Gilbertson

    2013 N.D. 35 (N.D. 2013)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that a contractor was excused from performance when homeowners refused to allow him onto the premises to repair alleged defects in the home's construction

    That settlement makes decision on the construction claims improperly advisory. See State v. Morin, 2012 ND 75, ¶ 16, 815 N.W.2d 229 (Crothers, J., concurring specially); and Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co., 2006 ND 198, ¶¶ 19–21, 722 N.W.2d 359 (Crothers, J., concurring specially). Rachel may well have been confused about some of the specifics, but contracts are based on mutual understandings, not unilateral misunderstandings.

  9. State v. Morin

    2012 N.D. 75 (N.D. 2012)   Cited 16 times

    However, upon affirming the search based on consent, analysis of exigent circumstances is dicta, which should be avoided for reasons already recorded. See Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co., 2006 ND 198, ¶¶ 19–21, 722 N.W.2d 359 (Crothers, J., concurring specially). [¶ 17] Daniel J. Crothers

  10. Wisness v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co.

    2011 N.D. 197 (N.D. 2011)   Cited 11 times

    However, an insurance policy can grant more coverage by its terms, but not less than required by statute. Sandberg v. American Family Ins., 2006 ND 198, ¶ 8, 722 N.W.2d 359. [¶ 28] Finally, I also do not agree with the majority's analysis regarding the endorsement adding excess underinsured motorist coverage offered by Nodak Mutual in 2007 to its insureds.