Legal Opinion
Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. Heim
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided February 27, 1997No. Civil 960187PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice.
[¶ 1] Maurus Heim appealed from a summary judgment declaring Nodak Mutual Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify him in an underlying lawsuit brought by his nephews, Alan and Corey Heim. We hold Nodak’s insurance policies and public policy preclude coverage for Mau-rus’s continuous pattern of intentional molestation of his nephews. We affirm.
[¶ 2] In February 1994 the State charged Maurus with two counts of gross sexual imposition for sexual contact with Alan and Corey when they were less than 15 years old and two counts of sexual assault for sexual…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B.California Supreme Court · 1993
- Richardson Engineering Co. v. William L. Crow Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- J. C. Penney Casualty Insurance v. M. K.California Supreme Court · 1991
- Hughes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
- Northwest G.F. Mutual Insurance Co. v. NorgardNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Western National Mutual Insurance Co. v. University of North DakotaNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
- Hanneman v. Continental Western Insurance Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Companies v. LagodinskiNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- Ziegelmann v. TMG Life Insurance Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
- Tibert v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.