Minnesota Bond v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Traders General Ins. Co. v. Freeman

    81 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (D. Or. 2000)   Cited 4 times
    Reaching opposite result

    Although there are no Oregon cases precisely on point, a 1985 case suggests that the Oregon Supreme Court would use the contract-based analysis to resolve the present dispute. In Minnesota Bond Ltd. a St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 300 Or. 85, 706 P.2d 942 (1985), the plaintiff corporation, which operated four separate businesses, was owned by two persons who both were on the board of directors. One of the two owners of the corporation provided bookkeeping services for at least two of the businesses and made all of the day to day decisions for one of the businesses, a beauty salon.

  2. Jazzabi v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    278 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that we review the court's decision whether to give a supplemental jury instruction, and the formulation of that instruction, for abuse of discretion

    Thus, the legal question presented is whether a jury can find for a plaintiff even if the jury has not unanimously rejected a defendant's affirmative defense. See Minnesota Bond Ltd. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 300 Or. 85, 706 P.2d 942, 943 (1985) (characterizing defendants' pleading that the fire was started by an intentional act as an affirmative defense). In addition, the district court, Allstate, and Jazzabi all treated the arson argument as an affirmative defense throughout the trial.

  3. K T Enterprises, v. Zurich Insurance

    97 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 1996)   Cited 170 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the standard of review is a determination that the court makes for itself

    The "exclusive" control language has no application to the situation where the arsonist's control is great, but not exclusive. An examination of the cases cited in the American Jurisprudence entry and in United Gratiot does nothing to make more definite the prevailing standard in the common law. Compare Miller Dobrin Furniture Co. v. Camden Fire Ins. Co. Ass'n, 150 A.2d 276 (Super.Ct. N.J. 1959) (cited in United Gratiot) (holding for the insurance company where the arsonist was 50% shareholder, as well as secretary, treasurer, and a director of the corporation) with Minnesota Bond, Ltd. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 695 P.2d 579 (Or.Ct.App.) (holding for the corporation where the arsonist was a 50% shareholder, president, and a director), rev'd 706 P.2d 942 (Or. 1985) and Erlin-Lawler Enters., Inc. v. Fire Ins. Exch., 73 Cal.Rptr. 182 (Ct.App. 1968) (reversing trial court ruling for the insurance company where the arsonist was the president and 50% shareholder of the corporation). In light of the indeterminacy in both the verbal formulation of the holding in United Gratiot and in the range of cases cited by United Gratiot either directly or indirectly, we hold that the Michigan Supreme Court would sustain Zurich's arson defense in this case as a matter of law.

  4. RSBI Aerospace, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.

    49 F.3d 399 (8th Cir. 1995)   Cited 415 times
    Holding that subsequent affidavits that contradicted earlier statements did not create a genuine issue of material fact and stating that “parties to a motion for summary judgment cannot create sham issues of fact in an effort to defeat summary judgment”

    While Missouri common law would not have prevented coverage for acts committed by employees unless the corporation had assented to the acts, we agree with the district court and the cases upon which it relied that because coverage for such acts is specifically included in the insurance policy, Missouri common law is inapplicable in this case. See, e.g., State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kane, 715 F. Supp. 1558, 1561-62 (S.D.Fla. 1989); Minnesota Bond v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 300 Or. 85, 706 P.2d 942, 943 (1985). RSBI also contends that the exclusionary language contained in the policy should not be applied in this case because the term "employee" is ambiguous and therefore should be construed in their favor.

  5. Hoosier Insurance v. North South Trucking Supplies, Inc.

    684 N.E.2d 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that the trial court did not err by refusing a tendered instruction that contained an incorrect statement of the law

    Rather, the cases suggest that an analysis must be made to determine whether the arsonist exercisedabsolute control in the conduct of the corporation's business or stood to benefit from its recovery. The rationale underlying the denial of recovery in such cases is that, when a corporation has relinquished control of its affairs to a single individual, it is deemed to have acquiesced in or ratified the wrongful acts of that individual. Minnesota Bond v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 72 Or. App. 187, 191, 695 P.2d 579, 582 (1985), rev'd on other grounds by 706 P.2d 942 (Or. 1985). Conversely, when the corporation has not explicitly or implicitly authorized the acts of the wrongdoer, recovery should be allowed.

  6. McLeod v. Tecorp International, Ltd.

    117 Or. App. 499 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 6 times

    A corporation can be denied coverage because of the intentional acts of a shareholder or officer of the corporation only when the shareholder or officer so dominates and controls the officers of the corporation that the corporate entity must be disregarded. See Minnesota Bond v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 72 Or. App. 187, 695 P.2d 579, rev'd on other grounds 300 Or. 85, 706 P.2d 942 (1985). Nothing in the record on summary judgment tells us the percentage of Mouakad's stock ownership in Tecorp or establishes that he had absolute control over Tecorp's affairs.

  7. Minnesota Bond v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.

    72 Or. App. 187 (Or. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 4 times
    Holding for the corporation where the arsonist was a 50% shareholder, president, and a director

    Argued and submitted May 16, 1984 Resubmitted In Banc November 7, 1984 Affirmed February 13, 1985 Reconsideration denied May 10, 1985 Petition for review allowed June 4, 1985 ( 299 Or. 251) See 300 Or. 85, 706 P.2d 942 (1985) In Banc