Legal Opinion
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co v. Seagate Technology, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided November 18, 1997No. C6-97-352, C1-97-484PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SHORT, Judge.
In a declaratory judgment action to determine coverage issues, the insurer argues it had no duty to defend an employer against an employee’s claims for injuries resulting from a workplace assault. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found a duty to defend because the underlying claims were potentially within the scope of coverage, but denied the employer’s request for fees. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02, both parties appeal from the entry of judgment.
FACTS
Vicki Mae Christian and Skylar Lynn Lipscomb worked under a service agreement for Seagate…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Iowa Kemper Insurance Co. v. StoneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Ponticas v. K.M.S. InvestmentsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Westchester Fire Insurance v. WallerichCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- Admiral Insurance v. G4S Youth ServicesDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2009
- Agricultural Insurance Company and American National Fire Insurance Co., Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Focus Homes, Inc. And Focus Homes Corporation, Appellees/cross-Appellants, Third Party v. Minnesota Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Plan, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Agricultural Insurance v. Focus Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.