Jorgensen v. Knutson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. WoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
- Commercial Union Fire Insurance v. KingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Pearson v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Security Fire & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1966
- Malin v. Netherlands InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.