Free Newsletter
Torts – Negligence in Procuring Insurance Coverage
admin//March 21, 2011//
Listen to this articleAppellants challenge the District Court’s determination that they were negligent in failing to procure insurance coverage for the mulch that respondent stored outside and the damages award. The District Court held that “special circumstances” existed between the parties, imposing a heightened duty on appellants. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court misapplied the special circumstances doctrine and that the appellants did not breach the ordinary duty of care. Reversed.
A10-0734 Prairie Wild Enterprises, Inc. v. Bofferding, et al. (Hennepin County)
Top News
- Judge rules DOGE’s cuts to humanities grants were unconstitutional
- Divided appellate panel revives golf ball home damage lawsuit
- Roberts laments perception of Supreme Court as ‘political actors’
- How Minnesota immigration blitz hobbled federal crime fighting
- Breaking the Ice: Wrongful death verdict ‘fulfilling on different level’
- Minnesota social media warning law faces First Amendment suit
- Wausau attorney accused of intimidating victim pleads not guilty
Expert Testimony
- Perspectives: Daily’s 125th at ‘U’ recalls varied cases
- Commentary: Will SCOTUS rule on general warrants and 4th Amendment?
- Perspectives: Law Day: Notable Supreme Court quotes
- Commentary: What can we learn from a secret act of judicial tyranny?
