Legal Opinion
In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage Litigation
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided September 24, 2002No. C5-01-1546, C5-01-1742, C4-01-1778, C1-01-1821, C8-01-1850, C7-01-1869, C1-01-1897, C3-01-1920, C3-01-1738, C4-01-1747, C9-01-1811, C4-01-1828, C2-01-1861, C6-01-1894, C9-01-1906, C7-01-1922, C3-01-1965, C3-01-1741, C6-01-1748, C0-01-1812, C6-01-1829, C4-01-1862, CX-01-1896, C3-01-1917 and C2-01-1925PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge.
In this dispute, the parties seek resolution of insurance coverage and other issues. 3M had been sued by women who claimed that their silicone-gel breast implants, manufactured by 3M, caused them injury. 3M settled the suits and then turned to its liability insurers for coverage. After extensive proceedings, the district court resolved the claims. 3M and the insurers brought separate appeals from the district court’s posttrial orders and final partial judgment, and this court consolidated the appeals.
3M conténds that (a) the policies in effect at the time of the…
2Cases cited64 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Wild v. RarigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Hoang Minh Ly v. NystromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- In Re Silicone Implant Insurance Coverage LitigationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Allan Block Corp. v. County Materials Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
- Driscoll v. STANDARD HARDWARE, INC.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- Parr v. GonzalezCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2003
- Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.