Legal Opinion
Continental Casualty Co. v. Reserve Insurance
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 16, 1976No. 45111PublishedCited by 71 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Kelly, Justice.
Plaintiff, Continental Casualty Company (Continental), appeals from a judgment on the pleadings rendered in favor of defendant, Reserve Insurance Company (Reserve). We reverse.
The following facts are stated in the pleadings, which we ac cept as true: 1 Reserve is the primary insurer for the city of Marshall, Minnesota, for any legal liability which it might incur under the so-called Dram Shop Act, Minn. St. 340.95, with a policy limit of $50,000. Continental is the excess liability insurer for the city with limits of $50,000 to $950,000. Both carriers issued policies covering…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Crisci v. Security InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Hendrickson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. All American Bus Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1951
- United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a Corporation v. Tri-State Insurance Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1960
- American Fidelity & Casualty Co., Inc. v. All American Bus Lines, IncCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1950
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- Loy v. BundersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
- American Centennial Insurance Co. v. Canal Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1992
- Commercial Union Insurance v. Medical Protective Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1986
- Jostens, Inc. v. Mission Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Maine Bonding & Casualty Co. v. Centennial InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1985
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.