Commercial Union Ins. v. School Bd.

5 Citing cases

  1. Kinetic Co. v. Medtronic, Inc.

    672 F. Supp. 2d 933 (D. Minn. 2009)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that the case “easily discerns a public benefit” based on allegations relating to 87,000 implanted defibrillators with potentially lethal defects and where misrepresentations and omissions were made to the public at large and not disclosed to the FDA

    "The right of subrogation arises once the subrogee makes payment to its insured." Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Minnesota School Bd. Ass'n, 600 N.W.2d 475, 480 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). Here, Kinetic alleges it has already paid for all medical expenses surrounding its employee's receipt of a Medtronic defibrillator.

  2. Becker v. Estate of Schenatzki

    No. A21-0485 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2021)

    The existence and extent of subrogation rights is a question of law that we review de novo." Com. Union Ins. Co. v. Minn. School Bd. Ass'n, 600 N.W.2d 475, 478 (Minn.App. 1999) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when a nonmoving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case.

  3. Minnesota Insurance Co. v. Nat. Env. Corp.

    No. A06-2080 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2008)

    1993). Where there is no issue of material fact, this court reviews the district court's application of the law de novo. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Minn. Sch. Bd. Ass'n, 600 N.W.2d 475, 478 (Minn.App. 1999), review denied (Minn. Dec. 21, 1999).

  4. Kahnke v. Green

    695 N.W.2d 148 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that subrogation rights were asserted in a timely fashion when the plaintiff raised the subrogation rights at the collateral-source hearing

    Accordingly, its application is governed by equitable principles. See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Minn. Sch. Bd. Ass'n, 600 N.W.2d 475, 478-79 (Minn.App. 1999) (noting that "[b]ecause subrogation is equitable in origin, even when the right is contractual in nature, the terms of the subrogation are governed by equitable principles, unless the contract explicitly provides otherwise"), review denied (Minn. Dec. 21, 1999).

  5. Elfstrom v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co.

    No. C8-99-2141 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2000)

    We review de novo the decision that the claim cannot withstand summary judgment where the determination is premised on an application of the law to undisputed facts. See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Minnesota Sch. Bd. Ass'n, 600 N.W.2d 475, 478 (Minn.App. 1999), review denied (Minn. Dec. 21, 1999).