Minn. Stat. § 62A.03

Burgraff v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. · 1984 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Time Insurance Co. v. Opus Corp. · 1994 1 citation

Opus also points out that Minnesota law requires that “exceptions and reductions of indemnity * * * must be included [in the policy] with the benefit provision to which it applies.” Minn. Stat. § 62A.03, subd. 1(6) (1992). The district court reasoned, and Opus now argues, that subrogation necessarily constitutes an exception or reduction of indemnity and therefore had to be in writing to be valid. Exception or reduction implies a limitation on coverage; subrogation is not a coverage limitation, but an equitable principle requiring a wrongdoer to pay for harm caused without regard to the presence of insurance.