Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge.
Appellants were found to have committed professional negligence by failing to properly advise respondent Robert Becker on his insurance coverage. Appellants contest the finding that they were negligent and that their negligence was the proximate cause of respondent Beth Becker Ru-nia’s inability to recover damages for her injuries. Appellants also challenge the constitutionality of the additur imposed in an earlier proceeding on Beth Runia’s injuries, and the admission of expert testimony to interpret other insurance policies. We affirm.
FACTS
On January 13, 1983,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Krueger v. KnutsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
- Genzel v. HalvorsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- Bowman v. Pamida, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Melin v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Hotchkiss v. CuttingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Born v. Medico Life Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
- Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989