Legal Opinion
Pususta v. State Farm Insurance Companies
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided July 19, 2001No. C8-99-1068PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, RUSSELL A., Justice.
In mandatory arbitration, respondent Mariah Pususta sought no-fault medical expense benefits from her insurance carrier, appellant State Farm Insurance Companies (State Farm), for injuries she sustained in an automobile accident on December 6, 1997. We are asked to review the no-fault arbitrator’s legal conclusion, upheld by the district court and affirmed by the court of appeals, that the arbitrator is precluded from considering whether some of the claimed medical expenses were for injuries that resulted from a prior nonautomobile accident, and if so,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Continental Western Insurance Co. v. KlugSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Johnson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Tlougan v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
- Nathe Bros., Inc. v. American National Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Olson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
- Nichols v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- Joan M. Nichols v. State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- Pususta v. State Farm Insurance CompaniesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001