Minn. Stat. § 60C.09

Seehus v. Bor-Son Construction, Inc. · 2010 8 citations

+ 8 more citations in this opinion.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc. · 2005 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

Maxwell Communications v. Webb Publishing Co. · 1994 10 citations

+ 10 more citations in this opinion.

Pirkov-Middaugh v. Gillette Children's Hospital · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Terminal Transport, Inc. v. Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Association · 2015 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Integra Telecom, Inc. · 2005 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Van Guilder v. National Freight, Inc. · 2004 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Liquidation of National Family Insurance Corp. · 1999 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Wirth v. M.A. Mortenson/Shal Associates · 1994 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In Re the Liquidation of Excalibur Insurance Co. · 1994 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Cox v. Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Ass'n · 1993 7 citations

MIGA appeals the district court’s award and its declaration that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 60C.13, subd. 2 (1992), the Coxes’ MIGA recovery is not reduced by their recovery from any other state’s guaranty fund. The Coxes filed a notice of review of the court’s determination that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 60C.09, subd. 1 (1992), they have only one covered claim against MIGA. We affirm that the Coxes have only one covered claim against MIGA and reverse the ruling that the Coxes’ MIGA recovery is not reduced by their recovery from another state’s guaranty fund.

MIGA appeals the district court’s award and its declaration that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 60C.13, subd. 2 (1992), the Coxes’ MIGA recovery is not reduced by their recovery from any other state’s guaranty fund. The Coxes filed a notice of review of the court’s determination that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 60C.09, subd. 1 (1992), they have only one covered claim against MIGA. We affirm that the Coxes have only one covered claim against MIGA and reverse the ruling that the Coxes’ MIGA recovery is not reduced by their recovery from another state’s guaranty fund.

MIGA appeals the district court’s award and its declaration that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 60C.13, subd. 2 (1992), the Coxes’ MIGA recovery is not reduced by their recovery from any other state’s guaranty fund. The Coxes filed a notice of review of the court’s determination that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 60C.09, subd. 1 (1992), they have only one covered claim against MIGA. We affirm that the Coxes have only one covered claim against MIGA and reverse the ruling that the Coxes’ MIGA recovery is not reduced by their recovery from another state’s guaranty fund.

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co v. H & W Motor Express Co. · 1993 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Unique Systems Development, Inc. v. Star Agency · 1993 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Anderson Trucking Service, Inc. v. Minnesota Insurance Guaranty Ass'n · 1993 10 citations

+ 10 more citations in this opinion.

Gimmestad v. Gimmestad · 1990 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Dunbar Kapple, Inc. · 1989 8 citations

+ 8 more citations in this opinion.

Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pagel · 1989 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Hormel Foods Corp. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance · 1996 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.