Legal Opinion
Burgraff v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 30, 1984No. C5-82-1102PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMONETT, Justice.
The issue here is whether the provision in an auto liability policy defining who is a “relative” of the named insured for under-insured motorist coverage is, as the trial court decided, contrary to the provisions of the No-Fault Act and, therefore, invalid. We conclude that the statutory definition of “relative” in the No-Fault Act applies to underinsured motorist coverage and that the insurance policy’s 'definition of “relative” is inconsistent with the statutory definition and is, therefore, invalid. We affirm.
On October 1, 1977, while a passenger in her boyfriend’s…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Holman v. All Nation Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Integrity Mutual Insurance v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Wasche v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Kaysen v. Federal Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- In Re the Marriage of LawsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1987
- Jablonski v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Roering v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. KraayenbrinkCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Hoeschen v. South Carolina Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.