Legal Opinion
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided October 1, 2002No. C4-02-396PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge.
Respondent insurance company refused to arbitrate a car accident because its insured instructed it not to provide coverage, pay or defend the action. Appellant *544insurance company moved to compel arbitration, and the district court denied the motion. Appellant contends that (1) the district court erred by denying its motion to compel respondent to arbitrate; (2) respondent’s refusal to pay the claim based on the instruction of the insured violates public policy and the Unfair Claims Practices Act, Minn.Stat. § 72A.201, subd. 8(3) (2000); (3) appellant is entitled…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority HouseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Morris v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Johnson v. Piper Jaffray, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
- Seifert v. Regents of University of MinnesotaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- Amdahl v. Green Giant Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002