Minnesota

Featured
Failure to Conform Exclusion Broadly Construed

The court, for purposes of its analysis, conceded that "the claims in the underlying lawsuits are covered by the insurance policies," id. at 1174-75, where the coverage for "use of another's advertising idea in your ‘advertisement'" was allegedly implicated by class action suits for false advertising

Read More →
Attorneys' Fee Demand Evidenced Damages

Promotion and advertisement of greeting card designs substantially similar to those of Taylor Corp. through automation of catalogues depicting the offending designs to customers triggered a defense under coverage for "advertising injury" arising out of "infringement of copyright."

Read More →
Comsat Antitrust Lawsuit Covered

The court found a duty to defend arose for claims asserted in an antitrust lawsuit within St. Paul's 1986 ISO style coverage for "making known to any person or organization written or spoken material that belittles the products, work, or the completed work of others."

Read More →

CHOICE OF LAW

Choice of Law Admission of Extrinsic Evidence Insurer Allocation Pre-Tender FeesStatute of Limitations
Significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts – five-factor testFacts available to the insurerIf one claim is potentially covered, must defend entire suitNot recoverable6 years
Jepsen v. General Cas. Co. of Wis., 513 N.W.2d 467, 469-70 (Minn. 1994)Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. General Cas. Ins. Cos., 465 F.3d 900, 905 (8th Cir. 2006)
Garvis v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 497 N.W.2d 254, 258 (Minn. 1993) ("Of course, if the insurer is aware of facts indicating that there may be a claim, either from what is said directly or inferentially in the complaint")		St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Seagate Tech., 570 N.W.2d 503, 505-06 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 563 N.W.2d 724, 739 (Minn. 1997)(Minn. Stat. § 541.07)
Pre-Judgment Interest Late Notice Public Policy Bar Independent CounselAtty's Fees/Decl. Relief Action
On or before the 20th day of Dec. of each year the state court administrator shall determine the rate from the one-year constant maturity treasury yield for the most recent calendar month. This yield, rounded to the nearest one percent, or four percent, whichever is greater, shall be the annual interest rate during the succeeding calendar yearNotice-prejudiceUnclearMay choose own counselRecoverable
(Minn. Stat. § 549.09(c))North Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Midwest Family Mut. Ins. Co., 634 N.W.2d 216, 220-22 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)Independent School Dist. No. 697 v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 515 N.W.2d 576, 580 (Minn. 1994)Spicer, Watson & Carp v. Minnesota Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co., 502 N.W.2d 400, 404 n.2 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)
Mutual Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Luetmer, 474 N.W.2d 365, 368 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)		Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Ins. Co., Inc., 559 N.W.2d 411, 420 (Minn. 1997)
American Std. Ins. Co. v. Le, 551 N.W.2d 923 (Minn. 1996)
Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 563 N.W.2d 724, 740 (Minn. 1997)