Carlson v. Allstate Ins. Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Wallerich

    563 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2009)   Cited 21 times
    Finding that Minnesota law would not allow reimbursement absent a contractual right to do so in the policy

    The Court's interpretation of the spouse provision does not comport with general principles of insurance law, which require us to give effect to all provisions in a policy. E.g., Carlson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 734 N.W.2d 695, 699 (Minn.Ct.App. 2007). By considering Shayna Fayette an insured for a claim arising out of her status as an investor in the partnership, the Court nullifies the limiting phrase "provided, however, coverage is afforded to such . . . spouses . . . only for a Claim arising solely out their status as such" and extends the limited application of the provision beyond its intended purpose.

  2. West Bend Mut. Ins. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    776 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 2009)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that the term “insured” in Minn.Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a refers to the “named insured” on a policy

    We held that "an insured" in the context of first priority coverage — UIM coverage available from the occupied vehicle — means a "named insured" and concluded that an employee must be a "named insured" on her company's insurance policy in order to be precluded from accessing her personal UIM coverage. See Becker, 611 N.W.2d at 9 (State Farm moved for summary judgment, claiming that Becker is " an insured under her employer's insurance policy on the occupied vehicle" (emphasis added)); see also Carlson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 734 N.W.2d 695, 702 (Minn.App. 2007), aff'd, 749 N.W.2d 41 (Minn. 2008) ("Becker construed the term `an insured' as it appears in the first paragraph of section 65B.49, subdivision 3a(5), not `is insured,' which is the term used in the second paragraph of section 65B.49, subdivision 3a(5)" (emphasis added)).

  3. Carlson v. Allstate

    749 N.W.2d 41 (Minn. 2008)   Cited 125 times
    Determining that a person listed as a driver was not a "policy holder"

    The court of appeals affirmed. Carlson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 734 N.W.2d 695, 703 (Minn.App. 2007). We granted review.

  4. Living Challenge v. Foremost Ins. Group

    No. A09-2062 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2010)

    Because the term "explosion" was unambiguous, the district court was required to give the term its usual and accepted meaning, with the purpose of effectuating the parties' intent. See Carlson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 734 N.W.2d 695, 699 (Minn. App. 2007). "The terms of an insurance policy should be construed according to what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood the words to mean rather than what the insurer intended the language to mean."

  5. Duluth Amateur Hockey v. West Bend Mut

    No. A06-2376 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 12, 2007)

    West Bend argues that the district court erred by determining that, under the plain language of the policy, the dasher-board system was covered. The construction of an insurance policy is a question of law, which we review de novo. Carlson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 734 N.W.2d 695, 699 (Minn.App. 2007). When construing an insurance policy, a court should consider the policy and any endorsements, and should give effect to all of the provisions.