Legal Opinion

Pedro Companies v. Sentry Insurance

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided June 14, 1994No. C9-94-72PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

Appellants The Pedro Companies, Carl Pedro, Jr. and Eugene Pedro seek reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment, arguing that respondent Sentry Insurance, a Mutual Company (Sentry) was not prejudiced by late notice of the Alfred Pedro lawsuit and thus is responsible for costs and attorney fees incurred in defending the slander claim. We affirm.

FACTS

Alfred Pedro, Carl Pedro, Jr., and Eugene Pedro are brothers. At one time, each was an officer, director, and equal shareholder of Pedro Companies. After a number of disputes, Alfred Pedro was terminated.

In…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  3. Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. BartlettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  4. Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. IversonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  5. Washington v. Federal Kemper InsuranceCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1984

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. C.J. Duffey Paper Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
  2. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
  3. C.J. Duffey Paper v. Liberty Mutual Ins.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
  4. Cellex Biosciences, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
  5. Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997

3 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