Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STAUBER, Judge.
Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03(i), the district court certified the following question for appellate review as important and doubtful: “Can a court order primary insurers, who insure the same insured for the same risks, and whose policies are triggered for defense purposes, to be equally liable for the costs of defense where there is otherwise no privity between the insurers?” Because an insured, as a part of its contractual duty to cooperate, has an affirmative obligation to preserve the insurer’s opportunity to obtain contribution from other primary insurers…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- In Re Hennepin County 1986 Recycling Bond LitigationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
- Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- Jostens, Inc. v. Mission Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. A.C.C.T., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Wooddale Builders, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Cargill, Inc. v. Ace American Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009