Legal Opinion
Christensen v. General Accident Insurance
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 17, 1992No. C8-91-1876PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s determination that respondent was alighting from a vehicle when injured and is entitled to No-Fault insurance benefits. We reverse.
FACTS
Respondent Pearl Christensen was injured after she slipped and fell on an icy street shortly after leaving her automobile. Respondent attempted to collect No-Fault insurance benefits from her insurance carrier appellant General Accident Insurance Company. Appellant refused to provide No-Fault benefits, and respondent brought this suit to compel payment.
The parties do not dispute the facts as found…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Continental Western Insurance Co. v. KlugSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Associated Independent Dealers, Inc. v. Mutual Service Insurance CompaniesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Classified Insurance Corp. v. VodinelichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Marklund v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. GarciaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- Allied Mutual Insurance Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- Sullivan v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
- Christensen v. General Accident InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.