Mealey's (June 18, 2015, 1:16 PM EDT) -- ST. PAUL, Minn. — An insurer did not have a duty to defend allegations against an insured for trespass, nuisance and strict liability, a Minnesota appeals panel affirmed May 18, finding that the policy’s intentional-act exclusion and criminal-act exclusion apply (Estate of Gladys I. Norby, et al. v. Waseca Mutual Insurance Co. n/k/a Austin Mutual Insurance, No. A14-1146, Minn. App.; 2015 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 461).

(Unpublished opinion available. Document #69-150608-016Z.)

The Norby and Minch families own adjacent parcels of farmland near a river in Minnesota....