Legal Opinion
Kasid v. Country Mutual Insurance Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided December 22, 2009No. A09-591PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WORKE, Judge.
On appeal from summary judgment, appellant argues that, as a passenger in a vehicle that was rear-ended, he did not have a duty to obtain information from the other vehicle’s driver and he should be entitled to recover uninsured-motorist benefits under the hit-and-run provisions of an insurance policy issued by respondent insurer. Because the district court did not err in concluding that appellant failed to show the operation of a hit-and-run vehicle, summary judgment was appropriately granted, and we affirm.
FACTS
The facts are not disputed. On or about December 23, 2006,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- Meister v. Western National Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- American Commerce Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Halseth v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Griffin Wasik v. Auto Club Insurance AssociationMichigan Court of Appeals · 2022
- Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. FarmerDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2019