Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Urie

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 23, 1986No. C0-86-920PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.

Roger Johnson appeals from a summary judgment determining that a negligence action cannot be maintained against respondents. 1 The trial court concluded that, following repeal of Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 6(e) (repealed 1980), insurers and insurance agents do not have a duty to offer and explain underinsured motorist coverage to insureds. Appellant argues that there is a common law duty to offer such coverage which is unaffected by repeal of the statute. We reverse and remand.

FACTS

Roger and Ardel Johnson purchased insurance from American Family Insurance Company agent…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  2. Holman v. All Nation Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. Collegiate Manufacturing Co. v. McDowell's Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1972
  4. Price v. AmdalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  5. Ruberg v. Skelly Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Johnson v. UrieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
  2. In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage LitigationCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
  3. Louwagie v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  4. Born v. Medico Life Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
  5. Lubbers v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API