Legal Opinion
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Seefeld
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 6, 1992No. C4-90-2612PublishedCited by 79 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
YETKA, Justice.
In this declaratory judgment action, petitioners appeal from a court of appeals’ decision holding that State Farm Insurance Companies are not obligated to defend or indemnify Gary and Kelly Seefeld under their mobile homeowner’s policy for injuries sustained by Kimberly Smith when she was injured in a two-wheel utility trailer being pulled by a four-wheel all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Petitioners contend, and the trial court agreed, that coverage under the mobile homeowner’s policy is available because an independent non-vehicle-related act — the negligent design and construction…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- A. J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Hubred v. Control Data Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Henning Nelson Construction Co. v. Fireman's Fund American Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Bobich v. OjaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Iowa Kemper Insurance Co. v. StoneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by79 opinions
- Lobeck v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Bob Useldinger & Sons, Inc. v. HangslebenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Jenoff, Inc. v. New Hampshire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- Joseph Friedberg v. Chubb & Son, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.