Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nygaard v. State Farm Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 20, 1999No. C8-98-1772Published

1DissentAmundson, Judge

The majority is correct: Under the decedent’s automobile liability policy, coverage does not exist for an “intentional act.” I do not agree, however, that the act involved in this matter was “intentional,” even when viewed from the perspective of the tortfea-sor, and I respectfully dissent.

The tragically unfortunate decedent intended to take her own life. To that end, she selected an automobile collision to perfect her plan. Completely at random, she ran her vehicle into an oncoming truck and severely injured its innocent driver. Can it be said that she intended the consequences this act had…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Continental Western Insurance v. ToalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  2. Caspersen v. WebberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  3. R.W. v. T.F.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  4. Dornfeld v. ObergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  5. Milbank Insurance Co. v. B.L.G.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992

1 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