Legal Opinion

St. Michel v. Burns and Wilcox, Ltd.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 13, 1988No. C5-88-982, C5-88-1002PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

Burns and Wilcox, Ltd. contends it did not violate any of the provisions of the Minnesota Surplus Lines Insurance Act, and particularly that it did not violate the Act because it acted through a licensed surplus lines insurance agent. Bums and Wilcox, Moorhead Insurance Agency, and Donald Birmingham contend the trial court erred in its determination that they are bound to the settlement agreement of plaintiffs and insured Pergen, Inc. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion appellants violated the Surplus Lines Insurance Act, and that they are liable for any loss Pergen…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Betlach v. Wayzata CondominiumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. Miller v. ShugartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  3. Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. HelmeArizona Supreme Court · 1987
  5. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. PaynterCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1979

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Steen v. Those Underwriters at Lloyds, London Signatory to Policy No. E0100191Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  2. Peterson v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
  3. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. GordinierDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1992
  4. S.G. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
  5. Allen v. Burnet Realty, LLCSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011

4 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