Legal Opinion

American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Vanman

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 23, 1990No. C8-89-310PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COYNE, Justice.

Reversing judgment in favor of American Family Mutual Insurance Company, the court of appeals held that a reparation obligor is not entitled to common law indemnity from an uninsured motorist for basic economic loss benefits paid pursuant to the assigned claims plan. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vanman, 442 N.W.2d 351, 354 (Minn.App.1989). We affirm.

On November 9, 1983, Marcella Sperl, a pedestrian, was struck by an uninsured automobile operated by Robert Vanman and owned by his sister Rebecca Vanman. Sperl, who was uninsured, procured basic economic loss benefits through…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Milbrandt v. American Legion Post of MoraSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  2. Mohs v. Parrish's BarSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  3. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. VanmanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Richardson Associates v. Lincoln-Devore, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Transit CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  3. Progressive Insurance v. WilliamsAppellate Court of Illinois · 2008
  4. Principal Financial Group v. Allstate Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
  5. Banks v. GrantSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API