Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, Russell A, Justice.
In this case, we are asked to interpret the scope of the initial permission rule which provides that when a named insured initially gives another permission to use a vehicle, subsequent use, short of conversion or theft of the vehicle, remains permissive even though the use is outside the initial grant of permission. We hold, in the context of the “theft or conversion” exception to the initial permission rule, that the intentional dominion or control necessary for “conversion” cannot be shown by accidental destruction of the vehicle in a collision. Further,…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Bobich v. OjaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Integrity Mutual Insurance v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Garrick v. Northland Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Larson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Haarstad v. GraffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Damon v. GroteboerDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2013
- Yang v. Voyagaire Houseboats, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- In Re CollierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- TCI Business Capital, Inc. v. Five Star American Die Casting, LLC, Brian T. FlynnCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- Williamson v. PrasciunasCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.