# Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wolters

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 31, 2013 · 831 N.W.2d 628

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8246892

## Case

- **Full name:** MIDWEST FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Michael D. WOLTERS, Charles E. Bartz, Jerry D. Larson
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** May 31, 2013
- **Citations:** 831 N.W.2d 628; 2013 Minn. LEXIS 304; 2013 WL 2363239
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent
- **Judges:** Anderson, Barry, Been, Consideration, Paul, Stras, Submission, Took, Wright
- **Cited by:** 91 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8246892

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that “a majority of jurisdictions limit the [pollution] exclusion to situations involving traditional environmental pollution,” although it is a slim majority (citing cases)
- explaining that absolute-pollution exclusions “eliminated” an exception for “sudden and accidental” pollution discharge found in earlier qualified pollution exclusions
- holding carbon monoxide is “pollutant” within plain language of pollution exclusion
- stating that Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 1037 (7th Cir. 1992) applies the majority rule
- holding that the reasonable expectations doctrine did not apply because the “exclusion was plainly designated as an exclusion”

## Opinion text

PAGE, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I believe the district court was correct when it concluded that, on these facts, the pollution exclusion does not bar recovery.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8246892. Public record. Not legal advice.