Legal Opinion
Ross v. Briggs and Morgan
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided October 27, 1994No. C7-93-2568PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
Appellant Scott M. Ross, M.D. argues that the district court erred in granting respondent Briggs and Morgan’s motion for summary judgment because material issues of fact existed regarding whether the law firm was negligent in not advising that he tender defense of a lawsuit to his insurer, respondent St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul Fire). We reverse and remand.
FACTS
Ross was a dermatologist for Skin Diseases P.A., a business owned by Dr. Manuel Jaffe. Jaffe also advertised his practice as the “Institute of Cosmetic Surgery and Hair Transplants.”…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Wartnick v. Moss & BarnettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Brown v. State Automobile & Casualty UnderwritersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Lanoue v. Fireman's Fund American Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Darby & Darby, P. C. v. VSI International, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2000
- Ross v. Briggs and MorganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
- Poof Toy Products, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1995
- Dogloo, Inc. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New YorkDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1995
- Union Ins. Co. v. the Knife Co., Inc.District Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1995
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.