Legal Opinion

Balderrama v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 24, 1982No. 82-148PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PETERSON, Justice.

Plaintiff Jaime Balderrama claims a right to basic economic loss benefits under the priorities provision of the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (the Act), Minn.Stat. § 65B.47 (1980). The district court denied the claim, granting the motion of defendant Milbank Mutual Insurance Company (Milbank) for summary judgment. Balderrama appeals from this order. Two issues arise: (1) whether Balderrama’s prior settlement of disability claims precludes a claim for statutory basic economic loss benefits; and (2) whether Balderrama was the “driver or other occupant” of his…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Haagenson v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. Gronquist v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  3. Hayes v. Erie Insurance ExchangeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Iverson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  5. Schimmelbusch v. Royal-Globe InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Roering v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  2. Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. NeuvilleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
  3. Klein v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
  4. Dahle v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  5. Gieser v. Home Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992

9 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