Legal Opinion

Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 27, 1988No. C2-87-1433PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Krueger v. KnutsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
  2. Genzel v. HalvorsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  3. Bowman v. Pamida, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  4. Melin v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  5. Hotchkiss v. CuttingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  2. Born v. Medico Life Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
  3. Runia v. Marguth Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API