Minn. Stat. § 72A.20

William Findling v. Group Health Plan, Inc., d/b/a Health Partners and Regions Hospital, ... · 2023 50 citations

at Minn. Stat. § 72A.20 (1984)) (emphasis added). The entire provision added in 1984

at Minn. Stat. § 72A.20 (1984)) (emphasis added). The entire provision added in 1984

at Minn. Stat. § 72A.20 (1984)) (emphasis added). The entire provision added in 1984

+ 47 more citations in this opinion.

Toth v. Arason · 2006 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · 2006 18 citations

+ 18 more citations in this opinion.

Morris v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · 1986 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Erik Hjelle, The Insurance Shop Services, LLC · 2015 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Schermer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · 2005 21 citations

+ 21 more citations in this opinion.

Kolton v. County of Anoka · 2001 1 citation

Minnesota courts have “consistently held that the remedial nature of the Minnesota Human Rights Act requires liberal construction of its terms.” Cybyske v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 196, 347 N.W.2d 256, 264 (Minn.1984). Minnesota has a clear public policy prohibiting discrimination against the disabled in insurance coverage. See Minn. Stat. § 72A.20, subd. 8(a) (2000) (unfair and deceptive act for insurance company to discriminate on basis of disability in terms and conditions of life insurance unless differences are based on actuarial data). The differential treatment in this case appears to reflect the traditional insurance industry practice of excluding the mentally disabled from full long-term disability coverage.

Great West Casualty Co. v. Barnick · 1996 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In Re the Insurance Agents' Licenses of Kane · 1991 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Seiberlich v. Burlington Northern Railroad · 1989 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Pillsbury Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh · 1988 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Great American Insurance Co. · 1987 21 citations

+ 21 more citations in this opinion.

Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London · 1986 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Morris v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · 1985 12 citations

+ 12 more citations in this opinion.

Weber v. TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INS. CO. · 2011 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

McClure v. American Family Mutual Insurance · 1998 6 citations

Defendants’ memorandum in support of their summary judgment motion spends considerable space discussing the applicability of Minn. Stat. § 72A.20 Subd. 20 to plaintiffs’ actions in this case. At the time of the actions giving rise to this litigation, that provision provided that “[a]n insurance company may not terminate or otherwise penalize an insurance agent solely because the agent contacted any government department or agency regarding a problem that the agent or an insured may be having with an insurance company.” Defendants cite to convincing evidence that at the relevant time § 72A.20 Subd. 20 protected only contacts with an executive department or agency, not the legislature. Defendants point to the plain language of this provision, legislative history, the bill’s title, and the language in other laws concerning the same subject for the proposition that plaintiffs’ actions in hiring a legislative lobbyist or having contact with the legislature themselves was not protected activity, as such actions did not involve contact with an executive department or agency. See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Summ. J. (Docket No. 15) at 10-14. Plaintiffs do not rebut any of this evidence, instead contending that they do not rely on a violation of § 72A.20, but merely cite the alleged violation of the statute in support of their argument that they were terminated in violation of public policy.

Defendants’ memorandum in support of their summary judgment motion spends considerable space discussing the applicability of Minn. Stat. § 72A.20 Subd. 20 to plaintiffs’ actions in this case. At the time of the actions giving rise to this litigation, that provision provided that “[a]n insurance company may not terminate or otherwise penalize an insurance agent solely because the agent contacted any government department or agency regarding a problem that the agent or an insured may be having with an insurance company.” Defendants cite to convincing evidence that at the relevant time § 72A.20 Subd. 20 protected only contacts with an executive department or agency, not the legislature. Defendants point to the plain language of this provision, legislative history, the bill’s title, and the language in other laws concerning the same subject for the proposition that plaintiffs’ actions in hiring a legislative lobbyist or having contact with the legislature themselves was not protected activity, as such actions did not involve contact with an executive department or agency. See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Summ. J. (Docket No. 15) at 10-14. Plaintiffs do not rebut any of this evidence, instead contending that they do not rely on a violation of § 72A.20, but merely cite the alleged violation of the statute in support of their argument that they were terminated in violation of public policy.

Defendants’ memorandum in support of their summary judgment motion spends considerable space discussing the applicability of Minn. Stat. § 72A.20 Subd. 20 to plaintiffs’ actions in this case. At the time of the actions giving rise to this litigation, that provision provided that “[a]n insurance company may not terminate or otherwise penalize an insurance agent solely because the agent contacted any government department or agency regarding a problem that the agent or an insured may be having with an insurance company.” Defendants cite to convincing evidence that at the relevant time § 72A.20 Subd. 20 protected only contacts with an executive department or agency, not the legislature. Defendants point to the plain language of this provision, legislative history, the bill’s title, and the language in other laws concerning the same subject for the proposition that plaintiffs’ actions in hiring a legislative lobbyist or having contact with the legislature themselves was not protected activity, as such actions did not involve contact with an executive department or agency. See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Summ. J. (Docket No. 15) at 10-14. Plaintiffs do not rebut any of this evidence, instead contending that they do not rely on a violation of § 72A.20, but merely cite the alleged violation of the statute in support of their argument that they were terminated in violation of public policy.

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Winslow v. IDS Life Insurance · 1998 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

US Liability Ins. Co. v. JOHNSON & LINDBERG, PA · 1985 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

United States Liability Insurance v. Johnson & Lindberg, P.A. · 1985 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.