Great Northern Oil Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
Minnesota Supreme Court
189 N.W.2d 404 (1971)
- Written by Genan Zilkha, JD
Facts
In August 1964, Great Northern Oil Company (Great) (plaintiff) obtained an insurance policy with St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and other insurance companies (defendants). This policy covered business-interruption losses. The insurance policy also included a subrogation clause, which gave the defendants subrogation rights. While this policy was in effect, Great entered into an agreement with Litwin Corporation, Inc. (Litwin) for construction services. The agreement with Litwin had an exculpatory clause that provided that Litwin would not be held responsible for business-interruption losses. In 1967, Litwin’s negligence caused damage to Great’s property. Great sued the defendants, claiming that Litwin’s negligence caused it to suffer a substantial business-interruption loss. The defendants were responsible for business-interruption losses under the terms of the policy. In their answer, the defendants raised the defense that, by releasing Litwin from liability for business-interruption losses, Great had defeated the rights of the defendants to subrogation. As a result, the defendants claimed that Great could not collect under the policy. Great and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment on the subrogation claim. The trial court granted Great’s motion for summary judgment and struck the defendants’ subrogation defenses. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rogosheske, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.