Legal Opinion

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 28, 2002No. C3-01-1870PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PORITSKY, Judge. *

A motor vehicle owned by Tennessee residents and insured by appellant Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (“Tennessee Farmers”) was involved in an accident in Minnesota. Two occupants of the Tennessee vehicle were Minnesota residents. Respondent State Farm, as a servicing agent for the Minnesota assigned-claims bureau, paid Minnesota no-fault benefits to the Minnesota occupants, then sought reimbursement from Tennessee Farmers for those no-fault expenses on the ground that Tennessee Farmers had contractually agreed in its policy to provide Minnesota no-fault…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance v. CravenCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2002
  2. Miller v. ACE USADistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2003
  3. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Insurance Company v. Commercial Union Midwest Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005
  4. Van Guilder v. National Freight, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
  5. Founders Insurance Company v. James YatesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016

2 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