Legal Opinion

Osborne v. Chapman

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 28, 1998No. C0-96-2216PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

TOMLJANOVICH, Justice.

This case presents the question of whether a negligent tenant is impliedly a “eo-insured” under an insurance policy held by the landlord which provides coverage for lost rents and, if so, whether such coverage bars an action by the landlord against the tenant for the lost rents. We also must consider whether the negligent tenant is liable for attorney fees incurred by the landlord in pursuing a claim against the insurer.

Appellants Randy and Carolyn Osborne decided to lease their Moorhead home on a trial basis. Respondent Richard Chapman agreed to rent the home…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. C.R. Anthony Co. v. Loretto Mall PartnersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Dix Mutual Insurance v. LaFramboiseIllinois Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Sutton v. JondahlCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1975
  4. Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
  5. Alaska Insurance Co. v. RCA Alaska Communications, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Dilullo v. JosephSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  2. Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. RohdeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
  3. Rausch v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  4. 56 Associates Ex Rel. Paolino v. FriebandDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 2000
  5. Nuessmeier Electric, Inc. v. Weiss Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001

8 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