Doe v. Dickson

1 Citing case

  1. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hansen

    584 F. Supp. 3d 730 (D. Minn. 2022)

    No other plan is alleged or identified.See alsoState Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Williams , 355 N.W.2d 421, 425 (1984) ; Estate of Lehmann v. Metzger , 355 N.W.2d 425, 426 (Minn. 1984) ; Rulli v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. , 479 N.W.2d 87, 88–89 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) ; Doe v. Dickson , No. C7-97-313, 1997 WL 561252, at *2–3 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 1997) ; Warren , 1997 WL 104904, at *3–4 ; FACE , 632 F.3d at 420–21. Jeffrey does not argue that the seemingly overlapping character of the policies’ coverage grants and their intentional-act exclusions warrants reading one or the other more narrowly or in a way that, for this reason, might trigger the duty to defend or indemnify.