Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gopher Oil Co. v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided February 2, 1999No. C1-98-737Published

1DissentShort, Judge

I respectfully dissent. First, it is undisputed American Hardware did not insure Gopher Rubber Cote and Fred Bame personally. Given this fact, the trial court incorrectly required the insurer to pay $180,031.21 in post-tender defense fees and costs related to the Arrowhead litigation.

And second, a trial court cannot retroactively create an insurance relationship. Gopher is not an “insured,” and there was no valid assignment of the policy. See Yoselowitz v. Peoples Bakery, Inc., 201 Minn. 600, 604, 277 N.W. 221, 224 (1938) (stating benefits of policy do not extend to successor without valid…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1939
  2. Yoselowitz v. Peoples Bakery, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
  3. Closuit v. MitbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
  4. Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc. v. Federal InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1987
  5. Argonaut Southwest Insurance v. American Home Assurance Co.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API