Insurance

Manitoba Public Ins. Corp. v. Dakota Fire Ins. Co. , 2007 ND 206, 743 N.W.2d 788
A procedural remedy is not a vested right and is subject to repeal, modification, or change.
Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Assoc. Electric and Gas Ins. Services Ltd. , 2007 ND 135, 737 N.W.2d 253
Statutory interpretation is a question of law and fully reviewable on appeal.
Words in a statute are given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless defined by statute or unless a contrary intention plainly appears.
Statutes are construed as a whole and are harmonized to give meaning to related provisions.
If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the letter of the statute cannot be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.
Under N.D.C.C. 26.1-41-17, which permits a basic no-fault insurer to seek equitable allocation and intercompany arbitration for no-fault benefits paid, "the motor vehicle liability insurer of a secured person" does not include an excess liability insurer.
State by Workforce Safety v. JFK Raingutters , 2007 ND 80, 733 N.W.2d 248
North Dakota's workers compensation laws apply to an Indian employer and his state-chartered company, and to work projects occurring on the reservation.
Administrative res judicata applies to final agency orders.
Hasper v. Center Mutual Ins. Co. , 2006 ND 220, 723 N.W.2d 409
An insurer which seeks to deny underinsured motorist coverage based upon the insured's failure to notify the insurer of a proposed settlement with the tortfeasor must demonstrate that it suffered actual prejudice resulting from the lack of notice.
The determination whether an insurer has been prejudiced by an unauthorized settlement is a question of fact that is generally inappropriate for summary judgment.
In determining whether an insurer has suffered actual prejudice from an unauthorized settlement, relevant factors include the amount of the tortfeasor's assets, the likelihood of recovery via subrogation, the extent of the insured's damages, and the expenses and risks of litigating the insured's cause of action.
Sandberg v. American Family Ins. , 2006 ND 198, 722 N.W.2d 359
The requirements of a statute may become part of an insurance policy.
An insured's unauthorized settlement with Workforce Safety and Insurance does not adversely affect an insurer, because the settlement does not affect the insurer's right to a reduction in damages payable to the insured for uninsured motorist coverage by the amount paid or payable for workers' compensation benefits.
An amount is payable for workers' compensation benefits if it would have been paid to the workers' compensation claimant.
ACUITY v. Burd & Smith Construction, Inc. , 2006 ND 187, 721 N.W.2d 33
A commercial general liability insurance policy excludes coverage for damage to the insured's work product and provides coverage for accidental damage to property other than the insured's work product.
State ex rel. ND Housing Finance Agency v. Center Mutual Ins. Co. , 2006 ND 175, 720 N.W.2d 425
An instrument payable to multiple payees non-alternatively may only be negotiated, discharged, or enforced by all of them.
Payment of a check by a payor bank to one joint payee over the forged endorsement of another payee does not discharge the drawer's obligation on the instrument, and the payee has an action against the drawer on the instrument.
A check containing a forged endorsement is not "properly payable" under N.D.C.C. 41-04-32(1), and the drawer has a right to reimbursement of the amount of the check to its account if its bank accepts and pays the check.

Acuity Ins. Co. v. Meridian Ins. Co. , 2005 ND 169, 709 N.W.2d 21
Summary judgment in an insurance contribution action is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (6).
Johnson v. Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. , 2005 ND 112, 699 N.W.2d 45
An insurer's payment for an insured's independent medical examination is not a no-fault benefit for purposes of a statute of limitations that requires actions for further benefits to begin no later than four years after the last payment of benefits.
A motion for relief from a judgment may not be used to provide a litigant with a second chance to present new legal theories to a court.
State of ND v. NDSU , 2005 ND 75, 694 N.W.2d 225
For purposes of an insurance policy exclusion for surface water damage, surface water does not lose its character as surface water by being diverted underground through man-made structures.
The efficient proximate cause doctrine applies only where two or more independent forces operate to cause the loss.
The efficient proximate cause doctrine does not apply to a loss caused by a discernable cause even though the insured attempts to characterize the cause in various ways to create the appearance of multiple causes.
A covered peril that is merely a concurrent cause is insufficient to allow coverage under the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
Spectrum Care, L.L.C. v. Workforce Safety and Insurance , 2004 ND 229, 690 N.W.2d 233
Section 65-04-32, N.D.C.C., applies to an employer's challenge to the classification of its employees for purposes of establishing insurance premiums payable to Workforce Safety and Insurance, and a court's review of a decision regarding those classifications is under sections 28-32-46 and 28-32-49, N.D.C.C.
Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wamsley , 2004 ND 174, 687 N.W.2d 226
The significant-contacts approach to choice-of-law questions is appropriate in contract cases with multistate factual contacts.
In insurance contract cases, consideration of predictability of results favors application of the law of the state in which the insurance policy was negotiated, issued, and the premiums paid.
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Lynne , 2004 ND 166, 686 N.W.2d 118
To successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment, a party must not rely upon unsupported or conclusory allegations.
An insurance policy is not ambiguous when the plain language of the policy precludes coverage.
A causal relationship exists when damage to property arises out of the inherent nature of the work performed.
A house is real property and a fixture when the actions of the owner manifest an intention to have the house remain on the property permanently.
Nationwide Mutual Ins. v. Lagodinski , 2004 ND 147, 683 N.W.2d 903
A tractor and trailer is subject to motor vehicle registration when it is used on public highways for transportation.
The doctrine of reasonable expectations does not operate to provide coverage when the policy language is not ambiguous.
An insurance policy is not ambiguous when the plain language of the policy operates to preclude coverage.
Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ward Co. Farm Bureau , 2004 ND 60, 676 N.W.2d 752
A defendant must have standing to assert a counterclaim against a plaintiff.
The existence of standing is a question of law which is reviewed de novo.
Individual shareholders generally have no right to bring actions in their individual names and on their own behalf for a wrong committed against the corporation.
To have standing to sue individually, a shareholder must allege an injury separate and distinct from other shareholders.
The statutory right to shareholder access to corporate documents and records provides a right of inspection, not a right to receive answers to questions submitted by shareholders.
Wangler v. Lerol , 2003 ND 164, 670 N.W.2d 830
Waiver and estoppel will not operate to create an insurance contract that never existed.
A Miller-Shugart agreement, consisting of a stipulated confessed judgment against an insured, a covenant not to execute on the judgment, and an assignment of claims, does not eliminate the insured's damages and make the assignment of claims ineffective.
A plaintiff need not replead previously dismissed claims in an amended complaint to preserve the right to appeal the dismissal.
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Center Mutual Ins. Co. , 2003 ND 50, 658 N.W.2d 363
Liability coverage for bodily injury because of an auto accident results under an insurance policy if the use of the auto arises out of the inherent nature of the auto.
For a person to be a gratuitous employee, that person's employer must have expressly or impliedly requested the employee's help.
Policy coverage cannot be defeated simply because a separate excluded risk constitutes an additional cause of the injury.
Implied indemnity for settlements is allowed if the indemnitee has a reasonable belief of potential liability, even though it is ultimately determined that the indemnitee had no interest to protect.
The right to sue for implied indemnity does not arise until the indemnitee has suffered actual loss through payment, settlement, or through the injured party's obtaining an enforceable judgment against the indemnitee.
American Ntl. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hughes , 2003 ND 43, 658 N.W.2d 330
An insurer is precluded from obtaining subrogation from its insured.
For purposes of subrogation, a closely held corporation's officers and employees may be implied co-insureds under a policy insuring the corporation's property.
Wilson v. Farmers Insurance Group , 2003 ND 8, 655 N.W.2d 414
Except when the evidence is such that a reasoning mind could draw only one conclusion, whether an insured substantially complied with an insurance policy provision is a question of fact precluding summary judgment.
Grand Forks Professional Baseball, Inc. v. Workers Comp. , 2002 ND 204, 654 N.W.2d 426
An officer or director of a corporation can be held personally liable for unpaid worker's compensation insurance premiums even though that officer or director does not own stock in the corporation.
Piatz v. Austin Mutual Ins. Co. , 2002 ND 115, 646 N.W.2d 681
When the record on appeal does not allow for a meaningful and intelligent review of an alleged error, we will decline to review the issue.
An insurance company does not waive its defenses regarding the reasonableness and necessity of continued treatment by initially paying no-fault benefits.
A witness need not be licensed in a particular field to be an expert, so long as the witness possesses the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in that field.
Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. v. Stegman , 2002 ND 113, 647 N.W.2d 133
An acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment must be notarized or otherwise witnessed and authenticated.
A person who does not regain consciousness after an accident and does not suffer conscious pain and suffering may bring a personal injury action against the tortfeasor for other damages, and therefore is an "injured person" under the hospital lien statute, N.D.C.C. 35-18-01.
A hospital lien attaches immediately upon rendering of medical services to a person injured in an accident.
A valid hospital lien has priority over claims of other creditors, and the hospital is entitled to collect the full amount of its lien from the tortfeasor's insurance without equitable allocation with other creditors' claims.
Western National Mutual Ins. Co. v. UND , 2002 ND 63, 643 N.W.2d 4
N.D.C.C. 26.1-32-01 and 26.1-32-03 codify the efficient proximate cause doctrine for determining insurance coverage for property damage where an excluded peril and a covered peril contribute to the damage.
An insurer may not contractually exclude coverage when a covered peril is the efficient proximate cause of damage even though an excluded peril may have contributed to the damage.
An insured may be entitled to prejudgment interest under N.D.C.C. 32-02-04 when an insurer denies a claim based on an exclusion from coverage, regardless of whether the insured has determined the exact amount of the loss if the amount was ascertainable under a proper construction of the contract.
Under N.D.C.C. 32-23-08, an insured is entitled to attorney fees incurred in an insurer's declaratory judgment action in which the court determines there is insurance coverage.
Fortis Benefits Ins. Co. v. Hauer , 2001 ND 186, 636 N.W.2d 200
If the language of an insurance policy is clear and explicit, the language should not be strained in order to impose liability upon the insurer.
When a conflict exists between a specific provision and a general provision in a contract, the specific provision ordinarily prevails over the general provision.
DeCoteau v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. , 2001 ND 182, 636 N.W.2d 432
When a named plaintiff whose individual claim becomes moot has not even moved for class action certification prior to evaporation of his personal stake in the lawsuit, the plaintiff may not avail himself of the class action exception to the mootness doctrine.
Rose v. United Equitable Ins. Co. , 2001 ND 154, 632 N.W.2d 429
A fraud action is not barred by the passage of time until six years after discovery of the facts constituting the fraud.
The purpose of a motion for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is to test the legal sufficiency of the statement of the claim presented in the complaint.
When a motion for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is made, the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the allegations of the complaint are taken as true.
A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it appears beyond doubt the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.
Farmers Alliance Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hulstrand Construction, Inc. , 2001 ND 145, 632 N.W.2d 473
Absent concerted action, there is no third-party claim for contribution among tortfeasors under North Dakota law.
When the parties to a contract agree to modify or alter the terms of their original contract, the new agreement ordinarily must be supported by new or additional consideration.
When the parties to a contract sign a subsequent agreement which is intended to merely clarify or explain the terms of the original contract, no new or additional consideration is necessary.
Rask v. Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. , 2001 ND 94, 626 N.W.2d 693
In determining whether a vehicle is an underinsured motor vehicle, only the policy insuring that motor vehicle is considered.
McPhee v. Tufty , 2001 ND 51, 623 N.W.2d 390
Whether the family car doctrine applies depends on the totality of the circumstances, and is a question of fact for the trier of fact to decide.
In deciding whether a vehicle was "used" by an insured when a third party was actually driving the insured's vehicle, courts analyze two factors: (1) whether the vehicle was under the supervision and control of the insured; and (2) whether the vehicle was being operated to serve a purpose of the insured.
Coverage of a newly acquired vehicle is automatic if notice is given within 30 days of its acquisition.
Carry Mocassin v. State Farm , 2001 ND 26, 625 N.W.2d 264
Summary judgment dismissing claims for deceit, negligent misrepresentation, bad faith, and infliction of emotional distress is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).
Schultze v. Continental Ins. Co. , 2000 ND 209, 619 N.W.2d 510
When several claims are made against an insured, an insurer has a duty to defend the entire lawsuit if there is potential liability or a possibility of coverage for one of the claims.
Nodak Mutual Farm Bur. v. Kosmatka , 2000 ND 210, 619 N.W.2d 852
N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) allows final judgment adjudicating fewer than all claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all parties in multiparty litigation.
Rule 54(b) certification requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances or that unusual hardship will result in the absence of review.
Rule 54(b) certification is improper when subsequent proceedings in the trial court may render the appellate review moot.
Center Mutual Insurance Co. v. Thompson , 2000 ND 192, 618 N.W.2d 505
Terms of an insurance policy are given their ordinary, usual, and commonly accepted meaning.
The absence of a definition in an insurance policy in and of itself does not establish ambiguity or mean the issue is automatically resolved in favor of the insured.
The existence of an employment relationship is ordinarily a question of fact.
Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co. v. Farm & City Ins. Co. v. Leikas , 2000 ND 163, 616 N.W.2d 353
The statute specifying the minimum coverage required to satisfy the financial responsibility law does not prevent insurers from providing broader coverage.
Permission to use a vehicle is revoked when the owner expressly forbids further use of the vehicle.
Mead v. Farmers Union Mutual Ins. Co. , 2000 ND 139, 613 N.W.2d 512
An insurer generally has a duty to defend an action against its insured if the allegations in the complaint give rise to the possibility of coverage under the insurance policy.
A jury's finding in a criminal case that an insured acted intentionally and was not acting in self-defense when he killed another person is res judicata, precluding relitigation of the issue of intent in a later civil action.
Mau v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh , 2002 ND 21, 639 N.W.2d 511
Question of law certified to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Mau v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh , 2000 ND 97, 610 N.W.2d 761
Question of law certified to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Ziegelmann v. TMG Life Insurance Co. , 2000 ND 55, 607 N.W.2d 898
Although insurance policies are adhesion contracts and ambiguities are resolved in favor of the insured, the court will not rewrite a contract to impose liability on an insurer if the policy unambiguously precludes coverage.
DeCoteau v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. , 2000 ND 3, 603 N.W.2d 906
Summary judgment is inappropriate where there is a factual dispute about which version of motor vehicle insurance policy was in effect when accident occurred and the insured may be entitled to underinsured benefits under one version of the policy but not under the other.
Midwest Casualty Ins. Co. v. Whitetail , 1999 ND 133, 596 N.W.2d 341
When the issues of policy coverage and an insurance company's duty to defend hinge upon a material fact question, N.D.C.C. 32-23-09 authorizes and contemplates resolution of the fact question in a declaratory judgment action brought by the insurer.
Haff v. Hettich , 1999 ND 94, 593 N.W.2d 383
N.D.C.C. 32-03.2-02, modified comparative fault, changed common law tort principles to require apportionment of fault and damages between an original tortfeasor and a physician who negligently treats the original injury.
N.D.C.C. 32-03.2-02 does not violate substantive due process.
Under N.D.C.C. ch. 26.1-41, bodily injury arising out of the operation of a motor vehicle includes negligent medical treatment of personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
Clarys v. Ford Motor Company , 1999 ND 72, 592 N.W.2d 573
There is no right to sue in tort when a defective product damages only itself--not persons or other property. This economic loss doctrine applies to both consumer and business plaintiffs.
Landis, Landis Farms v. CNA Insurance , 1999 ND 35, 589 N.W.2d 590
Courts must give consideration to the surrounding provisions and clauses of an insurance policy when interpreting an undefined term.
The term "unoccupied" in an insurance policy covering a dwelling means the house is not lived in or used principally as either a private residence or private residence under construction.
Midwest Medical Ins. Co. v. Doe , 1999 ND 17, 589 N.W.2d 581
When a malpractice insurance carrier concedes a duty to defend on all counts and to indemnify on some counts of a negligence action brought against its insured, it is inappropriate to render a declaratory judgment under N.D.C.C. 32-23-06, prior to resolution of the underlying action, on the carrier's duty to indemnify for remaining counts.
Allied Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dir. of N.D.D.O.T. , 1999 ND 2, 589 N.W.2d 201
Actual notice of an occurrence is insufficient to satisfy the written notice of claim requirement of N.D.C.C. 32-12.2-04(1) (1995), for claims against the state or state employees.
Dundee Mutual Ins. Co. v. Marifjeren , 1998 ND 222, 587 N.W.2d 191
When there is a conflict between an endorsement and other insurance policy provisions, the endorsement prevails.
In an insurance policy endorsement covering potatoes in storage, the plain meaning of the word "damage" encompasses wind damage to power lines resulting in loss of power to the storage facility and loss of potatoes due to freezing.
Daley v. American States Preferred Ins. Co. , 1998 ND 225, 587 N.W.2d 159
Under a choice of laws analysis, the "significant contacts" test, a court determines all of the relevant contacts which might logically influence the decision of which law to apply, and then applies five choice-influencing factors to determine which state has the more significant interest with the issues raised.
North Dakota law applies under the "significant contacts" test where both insureds are residents of North Dakota, the respective insurance contracts were negotiated and issued in North Dakota, all of the insured's medical expenses were paid in North Dakota, and only the location of the single vehicle car accident was in Minnesota.
Minot Town & Country v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. , 1998 ND 215, 587 N.W.2d 189
An appraisal proceeding is not an arbitration proceeding. Arbitration generally decides an entire controversy, while an appraisal generally establishes the amount of loss only, and not liability under the insurance contract.
When the proceeding defined in the insurance contract unambiguously calls for an appraisal proceeding, the Uniform Arbitration Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 32-29.2, does not apply.
Rebel v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. , 1998 ND 194, 585 N.W.2d 811
Unless there is a contractual assignment of an insured's rights against the insurer to an injured person, or a statute effectively conferring such a right to the injured person, the injured person has no standing to challenge whether the insurance policy provides coverage for the injury.
Close v. Ebertz , 1998 ND 167, 583 N.W.2d 794
A "family member" of the insured is included within the scope of an automobile insurance policy exclusion of coverage for "any person" using an auto without a reasonable belief the person is entitled to do so.
Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Horner , 1998 ND 168, 583 N.W.2d 804
Issues which are ordinarily factual in nature may become issues of law for a court to decide if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion from the facts.
Where an intentional act results in injuries which are the natural and probable consequences of the act, the injuries, as well as the act, are intentional.
An insured's slingshot shooting of a rollerblader was, as a matter of law, an intentional act under the intentional acts exclusion in an insurance policy.
Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Clark , 1998 ND 153, 583 N.W.2d 377
An insurer has no duty to provide a defense in an action that would yield no possibility of liability to its insured.
An intentional act exclusion in an insurance policy excludes liability for intentional, willful, or criminal acts.
A jury's determination in a criminal case that an insured was not acting in self defense when he shot and killed another may be res judicata, precluding relitigation of the issue of self defense in a later civil action.
Fisher v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. , 1998 ND 109, 579 N.W.2d 599
Coverage for damage to the flooring in a home arising out of the insured floor finisher's operations was not excluded by exclusions b or j in the insured's commercial general liability policy.
Exclusions k and l excluded from coverage the cost of the finish and the sanding and finishing work performed by the insured on the homeowner's flooring.
When an insured has been abandoned by its insurer and enters into a Miller-Shugart settlement agreement, a failure to delineate between covered and non-covered damages does not render the Miller-Shugart agreement totally unenforceable.
Hanneman v. Continental Western Ins. Co. , 1998 ND 46, 575 N.W.2d 445
The term "borrow" in an insurance contract means receiving something from another for one's own use.
Insured was not covered by insurance policy because insured was not a borrower of car.
Insurer had no duty to defend insured because insured was released from personal liability. Nor was insurer required to pay insured's attorneys fees and expenses because coverage was found not to apply.
Martin v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. , 1998 ND 8, 573 N.W.2d 823
The "severance" in a death and dismemberment insurance policy occurs where a member is separated or taken apart from the rest of the body.
A 90-day contract limitation period is not so unreasonable it is contrary to the public interest of North Dakota.
Hanson v. Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. , 1997 ND 230, 571 N.W.2d 363
In an action for death benefits under a term life insurance policy, summary judgment is proper when reasonable persons could not disagree the policy lapsed and the insurer was not precluded from treating the policy as lapsed.
Symington v. Walle Mutual Ins. Co. , 1997 ND 93, 563 N.W.2d 400
Because the issues raised on appeal from a partial summary judgment could never be mooted by a decision on the claims remaining in the trial court, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification. When construed in the light most favorable to the insured, a farm property insurance policy did not provide coverage for the death of feeder pigs in a manner which was not a covered cause of loss under the policy.
Ingalls v. Paul Revere Ins.Group , 1997 ND 43, 561 N.W.2d 273
There was evidence for the jury to reasonably find that the insured did not misrepresent his income and that the insurer's decision to rescind a disability income insurance policy for income misrepresentation was not reasonable. An insurer's presentation of an unreasonable defense may evidence bad faith. Whether an insurer has acted in bad faith in refusing to pay a claim is a question for the trier of fact. Absent an abuse of discretion, a trial court's determination on the relevance of evidence will not be reversed on appeal. There was substantial evidence for the jury's disability findings. There was evidence for the jury to find that unfair settlement practices, prohibited by NDCC 26.1-04-03(9) and used by the insurer, were performed with a frequency indicating a general business practice, and the trial court did not err in submitting the question to the jury. The amount of damages for mental anguish rests in the jury's sound discretion. The jury's exemplary damages award is not excessive.
Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. v. Heim , 1997 ND 36, 559 N.W.2d 846
An insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify an insured for the insured's continuous pattern of sexual misconduct, which was inextricably linked with the insured's intentional molestation.
Richmond v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 556 N.W.2d 67 (N.D. 1996)
Summary judgment dismissing tort claim summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1.
D.E.M. v. Allickson , 555 N.W.2d 596 (N.D. 1996)
Estoppel results from an insurer's stated reliance upon one ground for denying liability without stating additional known grounds, when there is resulting prejudice to the claimant.
Reasonableness of a settlement is a question of fact.
American Insurance Co. v. Midwest Motor Express , 554 N.W.2d 182 (N.D. 1996)
Retrospective premium adjustments made annually by an insurer under the terms of a workers compensation insurance policy did not create a 'mutual open, and current account' between the insurer and insured within the meaning of Section 28-01-37, N.D.C.C., for purposes of determining when an action accrues to start the running of the statute of limitations.
Schutt v. Schumacher , 548 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1996)
Isaac v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. , 547 N.W.2d 548 (N.D. 1996)
Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Landmark , 547 N.W.2d 527 (N.D. 1996)
Rued Insurance, Inc. v. Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, Inc. , 543 N.W.2d 770 (N.D. 1996)
Dundee Mutual Ins. Co. v. Balvitsch , 540 N.W.2d 609 (N.D. 1995)
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. , 540 N.W.2d 614 (N.D. 1995)
Bjornson v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co. , 539 N.W.2d 46 (N.D. 1995)
State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Estate of Gabel , 539 N.W.2d 290 (N.D. 1995)
Score v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. , 538 N.W.2d 206 (N.D. 1995)
Fetch v. Quam v. American Hardware Mutual Ins. Co. , 530 N.W.2d 337 (N.D. 1995)
Starry v. Central Dakota Printing , 530 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 1995)
Johnson v. Center Mutual Insurance Co. , 529 N.W.2d 568 (N.D. 1995)
Tolstad v. Tolstad , 527 N.W.2d 668 (N.D. 1995)
Northwest G. F. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Norgard , 518 N.W.2d 179 (N.D. 1994)
Industrial Commission v. McKenzie Co. National Bank , 518 N.W.2d 174 (N.D. 1994)
Continental Casualty Co. v. Kinsey , 513 N.W.2d 66 (N.D. 1994)
Ramsey National Bank v. Bye , 516 N.W.2d 300 (N.D. 1994)
Bjornson v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co. , 510 N.W.2d 622 (N.D. 1994)
Richmond v. Schauer , 509 N.W.2d 273 (N.D. 1993)
Dvorak v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. , 508 N.W.2d 329 (N.D. 1993)
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Sigman , 508 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 1993)
Gabriel v. Minn. Mutual , 506 N.W.2d 73 (N.D. 1993)
American Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange , 504 N.W.2d 307 (N.D. 1993)
Mark v. The Travelers Insurance Co. , 503 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1993)
Kavaney Realtor & Developer, Inc. v. The Travelers Insurance Co. , 501 N.W.2d 335 (N.D. 1993)
Continental Casualty Co. v. Kinsey , 499 N.W.2d 574 (N.D. 1993)
Seifert v. Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Company , 497 N.W.2d 694 (N.D. 1993)
Sellie v. ND Insurance Guaranty Association , 494 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 1992)
Plante v. Columbia Paints , 494 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1992)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. LaRoque , 486 N.W.2d 235 (N.D. 1992)
Kroh v. American Family Insurance , 487 N.W.2d 306 (N.D. 1992)
Blackburn, Nickels & Smith v. National Farmers Union , 482 N.W.2d 600 (N.D. 1992)
Continental Western Insurance Co. v. The Dam Bar , 478 N.W.2d 373 (N.D. 1991)
Van Klootwyk v. Arman , 477 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 1991)
Gust v. Pomeroy , 466 N.W.2d 137 (N.D. 1991)
McCarter v. Pomeroy , 466 N.W.2d 563 (N.D. 1991)
Thompson v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Company , 466 N.W.2d 115 (N.D. 1991)
Rawlings v. Fruhwirth , 455 N.W.2d 574 (N.D. 1990)
Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, Inc. v. Nat'l Farmers Union , 452 N.W.2d 319 (N.D. 1990)
National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Kovash , 452 N.W.2d 307 (N.D. 1990)
Janavaras v. National Farmers Union Property and Casualty Company , 449 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 1989)
Cormier v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Company , 445 N.W.2d 644 (N.D. 1989)
Vigen Construction Co. v. Millers National Insurance Company , 436 N.W.2d 254 (N.D. 1989)
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mutual , 434 N.W.2d 348 (N.D. 1989)
American Hardware Mutual Ins. Co. v. Natl. Farmers Union Property , 422 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 1988)
Kippen v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company , 421 N.W.2d 483 (N.D. 1988)
Strege v. Loyalty Life Insurance Co. , 422 N.W.2d 98 (N.D. 1988)
Walle Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sweeney , 419 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1988)
Beyer's Cement, Inc. v. ND Insurance Guaranty Assoc. , 417 N.W.2d 370 (N.D. 1987)
Zajac v. Great American Insurance Companies , 410 N.W.2d 155 (N.D. 1987)
Zajac v. Old Republic Insurance Co. , 408 N.W.2d 742 (N.D. 1987)
Farmland Mutual Ins. Co. v. Farmers Elevator, Inc. , 404 N.W.2d 473 (N.D. 1987)
American Family Insurance Group v. Carlson , 403 N.W.2d 397 (N.D. 1987)
Pioneer Realty and Land Co., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 403 N.W.2d 397 (N.D. 1987)
Gelinske v. Farmers Grain & Trading Co. v. The Mill Mutuals , 403 N.W.2d 397 (N.D. 1987)
Hoff v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty , 398 N.W.2d 123 (N.D. 1986)
Steenson v. General Casualty Co. , 397 N.W.2d 461 (N.D. 1986)
Houser v. Gilbert , 389 N.W.2d 626 (N.D. 1986)
Wayne Link & Kelly, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. , 386 N.W.2d 897 (N.D. 1986)
Heitkamp v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. , 383 N.W.2d 834 (N.D. 1986)
Apollo Sprinkler Co. v. Fire Sprinkler Suppliers & Design , 382 N.W.2d 386 (N.D. 1986)
Kiefer v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin , 381 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 1986)
Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co. , 373 N.W.2d 888 (N.D. 1985)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Department of Insurance , 373 N.W.2d 399 (N.D. 1985)
Emcasco Insurance Co. v. L & M Development, Inc. , 372 N.W.2d 908 (N.D. 1985)
Carlson v. Doekson Gross, Inc. , 372 N.W.2d 902 (N.D. 1985)
Zajac v. Old Republic Insurance Co. , 372 N.W.2d 897 (N.D. 1985)
Phoenix Assurance Co. of Canada v. Runck , 366 N.W.2d 788 (N.D. 1985)
Daley v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co. , 355 N.W.2d 812 (N.D. 1984)
Rolla Community Hospital v. Dunseith Community Nursing Home , 354 N.W.2d 643 (N.D. 1984)
Jim's Hot Shot Service, Inc. v. Continental Western Ins. Co. , 353 N.W.2d 279 (N.D. 1984)
State, ex rel. Moug v. North Dakota Automobile Assigned Claims Plan , 341 N.W.2d 623 (N.D. 1983)
McCarney v. Knudsen , 342 N.W.2d 380 (N.D. 1983)
Fobes v. Mutual Services Casualty Insurance Co. , 321 N.W.2d 490 (N.D. 1982)
St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. Andrews , 321 N.W.2d 483 (N.D. 1982)
Phoenix Assurance Co. of Canada v. Runck , 317 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 1982)
Aberle v. Karn , 316 N.W.2d 779 (N.D. 1982)
American Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Jordan , 315 N.W.2d 290 (N.D. 1982)
Bumann v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. , 312 N.W.2d 459 (N.D. 1981)
Erickson v. Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Co. , 311 N.W.2d 579 (N.D. 1981)
United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co. , 311 N.W.2d 170 (N.D. 1981)
American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co. , 304 N.W.2d 687 (N.D. 1981)
Grzadzielewski v. Walsh County Mutual Insurance Co. , 297 N.W.2d 780 (N.D. 1980)
Aid Insurance Services, Inc. v. Geiger , 294 N.W.2d 411 (N.D. 1980)
Holloway v. Blue Cross of North Dakota , 294 N.W.2d 902 (N.D. 1980)
Smith v. American Family Mutal Insurance Co. , 294 N.W.2d 751 (N.D. 1980)
Anderson v. American Standard Insurance Co. of Wisconsin , 293 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1980)
Thiel Industries, Inc. v. Western Fire Insurance Co. , 289 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 1980)
Bender v. Time Insurance Co. , 286 N.W.2d 489 (N.D. 1979)
Sierra Life Insurance Co. v. Wigen , 286 N.W.2d 296 (N.D. 1979)
Kasper v. Provident Life Insurance Co. , 285 N.W.2d 548 (N.D. 1979)
St. Alexius Hospital v. Eckert , 284 N.W.2d 441 (N.D. 1979)
Weber v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , 284 N.W.2d 299 (N.D. 1979)
Corwin Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. , 279 N.W.2d 638 (N.D. 1979)
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Knutson , 278 N.W.2d 383 (N.D. 1979)
Dolajak v. State Automobile and Casualty Underwriters , 278 N.W.2d 373 (N.D. 1979)
McGarry v. Skogley , 275 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 1979)
Wall v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance Co. , 274 N.W.2d 208 (N.D. 1979)
Nunn v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States , 272 N.W.2d 780 (N.D. 1978)
Everson v. Partners Life Insurance Co. , 268 N.W.2d 794 (N.D. 1978)
Applegren v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. , 268 N.W.2d 114 (N.D. 1978)
Patten v. Olson , 265 N.W.2d 688 (N.D. 1978)
Stetson v. Blue Cross of North Dakota , 261 N.W.2d 894 (N.D. 1978)
Williams v. Niesen , 261 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 1977)
Hins v. Heer , 259 N.W.2d 38 (N.D. 1977)
Zuraff v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. , 252 N.W.2d 302 (N.D. 1977)
Henson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. , 252 N.W.2d 200 (N.D. 1977)
Dolajak v. State Automobile and Casualty Underwriters , 252 N.W.2d 180 (N.D. 1977)
Mills v. Agrichemical Aviation, Inc. , 250 N.W.2d 663 (N.D. 1977)
Kooker v. Benefit Ass'n of Railway Employees , 246 N.W.2d 743 (N.D. 1976)
Schock v. Ocker Insurance Co. , 248 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 1976)
Lovas v. St. Paul Ins. Companies , 240 N.W.2d 53 (N.D. 1976)
Hughes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 236 N.W.2d 870 (N.D. 1975)
Richard v. Johnson , 234 N.W.2d 22 (N.D. 1975)
Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. v. Loeffler , 225 N.W.2d 290 (N.D. 1974)
Northstar Steel, Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co. , 224 N.W.2d 805 (N.D. 1974)
Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. v. Loeffler , 225 N.W.2d 286 (N.D. 1974)
Evanson v. Wigen , 221 N.W.2d 648 (N.D. 1974)
National Farmers Union v. Schmidt , 219 N.W.2d 111 (N.D. 1974)
Stockmen's Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Guarantee Reserve Life Ins. Co. , 217 N.W.2d 455 (N.D. 1974)
Ellis Agency, Inc. v. Berg , 214 N.W.2d 507 (N.D. 1974)
Kyllo v. Northland Chemical Company , 209 N.W.2d 629 (N.D. 1973)
Norgaard v. Nodak Mutual Insurance , 201 N.W.2d 871 (N.D. 1972)
Damm v. National Insurance Company of America , 200 N.W.2d 616 (N.D. 1972)
Kunze v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co. , 197 N.W.2d 685 (N.D. 1972)
Valenta v. Life Insurance Company of North America , 196 N.W.2d 393 (N.D. 1972)
Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Johnson , 200 N.W.2d 115 (N.D. 1972)
Automobile Club Insurance Co. v. Hoffert , 195 N.W.2d 542 (N.D. 1972)
Vantine v. Kudrna , 194 N.W.2d 760 (N.D. 1972)
Haugen v. Auto-Owners , 191 N.W.2d 274 (N.D. 1971)
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Nagle , 190 N.W.2d 758 (N.D. 1971)
Bloom v. Northern Pacific Beneficial Assn. , 193 N.W.2d 244 (N.D. 1971)
State Farm Mutual v. Wee , 196 N.W.2d 54 (N.D. 1971)
Brinkman v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. , 187 N.W.2d 657 (N.D. 1971)
Scott v. National Travelers Life Ins. Co. , 171 N.W.2d 749 (N.D. 1969)
Hill v. Schroeder , 156 N.W.2d 695 (N.D. 1968)
Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wacker , 154 N.W.2d 776 (N.D. 1967)
National Farmers Union Property and Casualty Co. v. Ryan , 153 N.W.2d 322 (N.D. 1967)
Bauerle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. , 153 N.W.2d 92 (N.D. 1967)
Strobel v. Northwest G.F. Mutual Ins. Co. , 152 N.W.2d 794 (N.D. 1967)
Tschider v. Burtts , 149 N.W.2d 710 (N.D. 1967)
Grabau v. Republic National Life Ins. Co. , 149 N.W.2d 368 (N.D. 1967)
Grabau v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. , 149 N.W.2d 361 (N.D. 1967)
Anderson v. Standard Life and Accident Ins. Co. , 149 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 1967)
Manikowske v. Manikowske , 146 N.W.2d 880 (N.D. 1966)
Prince v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. , 143 N.W.2d 708 (N.D. 1966)
State Auto & Cas. Underwriters v. Skjonsby , 142 N.W.2d 98 (N.D. 1966)
Rosenberg v. N.D. Hospital Service Ass'n , 136 N.W.2d 128 (N.D. 1965)
Tennefos v. Guarantee Mutual Life Company , 136 N.W.2d 155 (N.D. 1965)

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/23/2008