Legal Opinion
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Todd
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 16, 1996No. C5-95-497PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, Justice.
Appellant, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, asserts that it does not owe a duty to defend and indemnify its insured, respondent Robert A. Todd, for the claim of false imprisonment arising out of Todd’s sexual assault of his daughter, K.T. In a declaratory judgment action commenced by Auto-Owners, the district court concluded that Auto-Owners had a duty to defend and indemnify Todd. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed and held that while Auto-Owners did not have a duty to defend and indemnify Todd for bodily injuries intended by him, it did have a duty to defend and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Iowa Kemper Insurance Co. v. StoneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Brown v. State Automobile & Casualty UnderwritersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Jostens, Inc. v. Mission Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Horace Mann Insurance Co. v. Independent School District No. 656Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. WoltersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Franklin v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Murray v. Greenwich InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
- Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. & Affiliates v. MillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. PasiakSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2017
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.