Depositors Ins. Co. v. Dollansky
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Dissent
THISSEN, Justice (dissenting).
I agree with the court that Minn. Stat. § 60A.41(a) (2016) is ambiguous, but it is there that my view of the case diverges. I respectfully dissent from the court's conclusion that the Legislature's intended meaning of "insured" is "any party covered by some part of the insurance policy at issue." In contrast to the majority, I conclude that a person is an "insured" under section 60A.41(a) only when the person seeking immunity under the antisubrogation rule is, in fact, covered for the loss at issue. I would remand this case to the district court to determine…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
- Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
- Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. WoltersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Carlson v. Allstate Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.