2006_1031_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�9{j Minn. 563 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 2d SERIES informed). We conclude that the straw vote here was a secret vote, and, as such, violated the Open Meeting Law. DECISION Under the Government Data PraCtiC¢� Act, respondents were obligated to disclose the rr�rn�s ¢ f j4� finaiista a� �h$ �m� �� er,d- ed to interview them, not when the candi- dates agreed to be interviewed. The Open Meeting Law prohibits the secret straw vote taken at the January 27 council meeting. We reverse the district court's entry of sum- mary judgment on these two issues. We remand to the district Cott1't for a proper factual determination on the issue of whether respondents used the one-on-one interview �""O"' � 4r�d�r 1,� �o�d � � ai the Open Meeting Law. Reversed and remanded. a �51+�FN Y+lrl� SENTiNEi. MANAGEMENT COMPANY, et al., Respondents, :�etna Casualty and Surety Company, et al,, Defendants, v. ��BW �� INSURANCE COMPANY. Appellant. No. C�96-•2335. Court of Appeais of Minnesota. May 13, 1997. Insured brought suit under all-rislc poli- cy seelcing coverage for release of as6estos fibers and resultant eantamination of insured apartment buildings. The District Court, Hennepin County, Stephen Z. Lange, d., de- nied summary judgment td insurer on cover- age issue, and certified question as important and doubtfuL Insurer appealed from denial of summary judgment. The Court of Ap- peals. Short, �7., held that: (1} contamination by asbestos fibers released from asbestug. containing materials was fortuitous, �� physical loss covered under all-rislc. �5�� party property insurance policy: (?) loss � excepted from policy's wear-and-tear exr."� sion by ensuing loss clause: and (3) policy'g ordinance exclusion did not apply. �i?Irm�d; er.riiTied yurEii:u�s °'�x� in affu�rnatir•e. L �.o.v�ri..� �Ji�l Construction of insurance contract prea- r�� question �f 1#M', �� Appa*1 ipd FR4r �� ] � Supreme Court r�vie�;-� cmnstiuction of insurance contract de novo. 3. Insurance e�417,5(1} Fortuity is implied requirement for �r- �+� under all-rislc policy. 4 Insurance �7 � 5�1� Loss caused by preexisting defect is far- tuitous for purposes of all-rislc insurance poli cy as long as neither party lmew of defect or expected loss. 5. Insurance �175(7'� Release of asbestos-containing mater�als in insured's apartment buildings and res[d- tant contamination was fortuitous loss under all-rislc policy where, even if eventual corr tamination of buildings was inevitable, i�- sured was unaware of asbestos damage wl�r► insurer's policy went into effect fz Insurance �L77.5( ] r Requirement of direct physical loss in all-rislc policy requires only that covered property be inj ured, not destroyed. 9L rrt�urance �i�7.5f1� birect physical loss, for purposes of �F rislc policy, may exist in absence of structural damage to insured property. & �ne�irau�e �i1T,5�:1} Aabeatos contamination of apartment buildings constituted "direct physical loss" under all-rislc policy, even though asbestos