Legal Opinion
Giersdorf v. A & M Construction, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided September 5, 2012No. A11-1841PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STRAS, Justice.
The issue presented in this case is whether the workers’ compensation courts have the authority to hear a petition filed by A & M Construction, Inc. (“A & M”) to determine whether The Hartford (“Hartford”) has a duty to defend and indemnify A & M under a policy for workers’ compensation insurance. Hartford moved to *19dismiss A & M’s petition, arguing that the compensation judge did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear A & M’s petition because the petition asserted a breach of contract claim rather than one arising under the workers’ compensation laws. The…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Bob Jones University v. SimonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., Ltd.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. VangSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- McCullough and Sons, Inc. v. City of Vadnais Heights, A14-1992Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- Mark R. Zweber v. Credit River TownshipSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.