Legal Opinion

Schoenborn v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided February 9, 1993No. C4-92-1433PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

Appellant Diane L. Schoenborn and respondent State Farm Automobile Insurance Company are parties to an insurance contract providing both uninsured and underin-sured motorist benefits. The insurance contract provides that disputes involving uninsured motorist benefits may be submitted to arbitration; but it is silent on the resolution of disputes involving underin-sured motorist benefits. Schoenborn brought a motion to compel arbitration of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits. She argued that the 1986 version of the No-Fault Act, applicable to the case at hand,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  3. Johnson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  4. Dunshee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Michael-Curry Companies v. Knutson Shareholders Liquidating TrustSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Itt Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance Company v. Amerishare Investors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
  2. ITT Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance v. Amerishare Investors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API