Legal Opinion
Turner v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 4, 2004No. C9-02-2029PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GILBERT, Justice.
This is a case of first impression involving a question of whether the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 65B.41-.71 (2002), requires commercial automobile policies to provide uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage (“UM/UIM”) to occupants of an out-of-state rental vehicle. The court of appeals held that MinmStat. § 60A.08, subd. 12 (2002) requires commercial policies to provide only for damage and loss of use to rental vehicles pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 5a (2002). Turner v. Mutual Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 663 N.W.2d 36, 41…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Myers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Hertz Corp. v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Hanson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
- Turner v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
3Cited by7 opinions
- Farmers Insurance Exchange v. AndersonColorado Court of Appeals · 2010
- Lewis-Miller v. RossSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- Kastning v. State Farm Insurance CompaniesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
- Anderson v. Newmar Corp.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2004
- Berkley Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Franklin as Trustee for FranklinDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2019
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.