Legal Opinion

Carlson v. Mutual Service Insurance

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 5, 1993No. C1-91-1122PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COYNE, Justice.

Once again we consider the question of the imposition on an insurance agent of a common law duty, based on special circumstances, to specifically offer underinsured motorist coverage as a part of an automobile insurance policy issued subsequent to the repeal of the statute, Minn.Stat. § 65B.49, mandating an offer of underin-sured motorist (hereinafter UIM) coverage. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s imposition of such a duty in the circumstances of the case but reversed the trial court’s determination that the insured’s entitlement was limited by the amount of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  2. Mattfeld v. NesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
  3. Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., Ltd.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  4. Johnson v. UrieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
  5. Moose v. VeseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Merkel v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Vermont · 1997
  2. Vierkant Ex Rel. Johnson v. AMCO Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
  3. Joseph Wobig v. Safeco Ins Co of IllinoisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2022
  4. Sulik v. Total Petroleum, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1994
  5. Ma Amba Minn., Inc. v. Cafourek & Assocs., Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 2019

4 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