Legal Opinion
Gimmestad v. Gimmestad
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided February 27, 1990No. C9-89-1840PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANSING, Judge.
Appellants Gary L. Wright and the State of Minnesota challenge the trial court’s determination that respondent Nancy Gim-mestad is entitled to full coverage to the extent of the policy limits available from the Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Association (MIGA). MIGA has taken the place of appellants’ insolvent insurer. Concluding there is “no just reason for delay,” the court entered an amended judgment and this appeal followed.
FACTS
We adopt, with minor variation, the trial court’s well-stated account of the facts. Nancy Gimmestad’s claims arise from an automobile accident…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Allstate Insurance v. HagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Clark v. ClarkSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1966
- Milkovich v. SaariSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Hague v. Allstate Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Sands v. Pa. Ins. Guaranty Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Oglesby v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Thompson v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
- H Enterprises International, Inc. v. General Electric Capital Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1993
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.