Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that because “the conflicting laws at issue are relatively clear in that there is no dispute that recovery is allowed under one but not the other, this factor favors neither state’s law”
• finding that because “the conflicting laws at issue are relatively clear in that there is no dispute that recovery is allowed under one but not the other, this factor favors neither state’s law”
• finding an actual conflict where North Dakota law permitted an insurer’s subrogation claim but Minnesota law precluded such a claim
• North Dakota law applied to subrogation claim of a Minnesota insurance company covering a Minnesota resident who was injured in auto accident in North Dakota
• “Before a choice-of-law analysis can be applied, a court must determine that a conflict exists between the laws of two forums.” (footnotes omitted)
• “Before a choice-of-law analysis can be applied, a court must determine that a conflict exists between the laws of two forums.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).