Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jorgensen v. Knutson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 19, 2003No. C8-01-1685Published

1DissentMeyer, Justice

I concur with the majority’s conclusion in Part I that Milbank’s notice of cancellation did not meet the statutory requirements. I disagree, however, that a statutorily deficient notice can become legally effective. The clear intent of the legislature was to force insurers to strictly comply with the ten-day notice, and decisions from other states as well as sound public policy support such a holding.

Minnesota Statutes § 65B.16 (2000) states in clear language that “[n]o notice of cancellation * * * shall be effective unless” it complies with the timing set out in the statute. When the words…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. WoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
  2. Commercial Union Fire Insurance v. KingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
  3. Pearson v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  4. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Security Fire & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1966
  5. Malin v. Netherlands InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920

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

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

Powered by the Exa API