Legal Opinion
Bundul v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided August 5, 2008No. A07-1627PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SHUMAKER, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court’s ruling that a household exclusion in respondent’s umbrella liability policy is void and unenforceable. Because we hold the exclusion does not violate the no-fault act, we reverse.
FACTS
Benjamin Bundul resided with his parents, Michael and Carol Bundul. On November 28, 2003, he was driving his parents’ car, with their permission, when he collided with a parked fire truck. Carol Bundul, a passenger in the car, was fatally injured.
At the time of the collision, Michael and Carol Bundul were the named insureds in two insurance…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Bobich v. OjaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. v. NoskaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Glass Service Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- Jostens, Inc. v. Mission Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Babinski v. American Family Insurance GroupCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- Courtney Godfrey v. State Farm Fire and CasualtyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2021
- Babinski v. American Family Insurance GroupCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- Donald Babinski v. American Family InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2009
- Essentia Health v. ACE American Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2021