632 N.W.2d 549 (2001) Mariah PUSUSTA, Respondent, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES, Petitioner, Appellant. No. C8-99-1068. Supreme Court of Minnesota. July 19, 2001. *550 Robert W. Roe, Thomas J. Lyons & Associates, P.A., St. Paul, for respondent. William M. Hart, Katherine A. McBride, Jenneane L. Jansen, Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, for appellant. Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc. OPINION ANDERSON, RUSSELL A., Justice. In mandatory arbitration, respondent Mariah Pususta sought no-fault medical expense benefits from her insurance carrier, appellant State Farm Insurance Companies (State Farm), for injuries she sustained in an automobile accident on December 6, 1997. We are asked to review the no-fault arbitrator's legal conclusion, upheld by the district court and affirmed by the court of appeals, that the arbitrator is precluded from considering whether some of the claimed medical expenses were for injuries that resulted from a prior nonautomobile accident, and if so, whether reimbursement for such expenses should be denied. We reverse and remand. Pususta was in an automobile accident on December 6, 1997. At that time, she was receiving chiropractic care for back and neck injuries she sustained five years earlier in a horse-riding accident. In 1994, *551 her chiropractor requested that her health insurance carrier allow 24 chiropractic visits per year to treat the injuries sustained in the horse-riding accident. In 1997, Pususta visited the chiropractor once a month until the automobile accident in December. Following the accident, Pususta's pain worsened and her chiropractor concluded that the auto accident had exacerbated her prior injuries. After the accident, Pususta received more frequent chiropractic care: seven times in December 1997, nine times in January, eight times in February, nine times in March, seven times in April, twice in May, once in June, twice in July, and twice in August. Pususta had a no-fault automobile insurance policy with State Farm. Following the accident, State Farm reimbursed Pususta for the medical care she received for her injuries through February 1998, but State Farm refused to provide further coverage until Pususta submitted to an independent medical exam (IME). Pususta attended an IME on July 16, 1998. The independent medical examiner concluded that some of Pususta's injuries were caused by the earlier horse-riding accident and that chiropractic care for injuries arising out of the auto accident was warranted only through the first week in April 1998. State Farm informed Pususta that on this basis it would provide coverage only for expenses incurred through the first week of April. Pususta sought arbitration of the dispute and coverage for all chiropractic care through September 16, 1998, the date of the arbitration. State Farm argued it should not be required to pay for medical expenses incurred after the first week in April because the remaining medical expenses were due to the horse-riding injury and further treatment for any injuries related to the automobile accident was not reasonable or necessary. State Farm also argued that if it were required to pay for any medical care received after the first week in April, the expenses should be apportioned based on the degree to which the automobile accident caused the injuries. Specifically, State Farm asked that it not be required to pay for the 24 chiropractic visits per year that the chiropractor requested for the injuries that existed before the auto accident. The arbitrator awarded Pususta all of her medical expenses through August 1998. In his written conclusions, the arbitrator stated that the facts of the case "would call for apportionment, based upon the prior accident," but that our decision in Great West Casualty Co. v. Northland Ins. Co., 548 N.W.2d 279 (Minn.1996), precluded him from doing so. State Farm appealed. The district court upheld the award, and the court of appeals affirmed, concluding that under Great West, it was not clear that that the arbitrator erred by refusing to apportion medical expenses. See Pususta v. State Farm Ins. Cos., No. C8-99-1068, 1999 WL 1101388 (Minn.App.1999). We granted review to consider the no-fault arbitrator's conclusion that he was precluded by our decision in Great West from considering whether a portion of the claimed medical expenses resulted from injuries caused by the horse-riding accident and whether reimbursement for such expenses should be denied. No-fault arbitrators are limited to deciding questions of fact and their legal determinations are subject to de novo review by the courts. Weaver v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 609 N.W.2d 878, 882 (Minn.2000). The issue before us is a legal determination, which we review de novo. Nathe Bros., Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 615 N.W.2d 341, 344 (Minn.2000). We begin our analysis of the issue by examining the provisions of the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance *552 Act[1] (No-Fault Act) relating to reimbursement of medical expenses. Our primary objective in interpreting statutory language is to give effect to the legislature's intent as expressed in the language of the statute. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2000). The No-Fault Act provides that an injured person, such as Pususta, is entitled to medical expense reimbursement "for all loss suffered through injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle * * *." Minn. Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 1 (2000) (emphasis added). The term "loss" is defined as economic detriment, which includes medical expenses "resulting from the accident causing the injury." Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 7 (2000) (emphasis added). The statutory language thus incorporates the element of causation into the determination of what losses are reimbursable. The question that the trier of fact, in this case the arbitrator, must determine under the No-Fault Act is whether the medical expenses Pususta claims result from injuries arising out of, or caused by, the use or maintenance of a motor vehicle; that is, whether the medical expenses claimed are for injuries caused by the automobile accident. We have set forth three general considerations for determining whether an injury arose out of the use of a motor vehicle. See Cont'l W. Ins. Co. v. Klug, 415 N.W.2d 876, 878 (Minn.1987). In the case of this car accident, we are concerned only with the first consideration, which is the extent of causation between the automobile and the injury. Id.[2] The causal connection is established if "the injury is a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of the vehicle." N. River Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 346 N.W.2d 109, 114 (Minn.1984) (quoting Tlougan v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 310 N.W.2d 116, 117 (Minn.1981)). As applied to this case, the arbitrator appeared to question whether all of the medical expenses Pususta claimed resulted from injuries caused by the car accident, but he declined to answer the question, referring to such a determination as an "apportionment" of expenses caused by the horse-riding accident and expenses caused by the auto accident. The arbitrator determined that the facts of this case called for such an apportionment, but he interpreted our decision in Great West to prohibit the apportionment of damages where two separate accidents contributed to an injury. See 548 N.W.2d at 281.[3] In Great West, the insured injured his shoulder in 1988 in an accident that arose out of the use of a motor vehicle while he was working. Id. at 279. At the time he was insured by and received no-fault benefits from Northland Insurance Company. Id. In June 1991, the insured re-injured his shoulder, again arising out of use of a *553 motor vehicle. Id. At that time, Great West was his insurance carrier and it promptly provided coverage for his economic losses related to the injury. Id. at 279-80. By May 1992, Great West had paid more than $15,000 in no-fault benefits for the shoulder injury. Id. at 280. Great West brought a subrogation and contribution action against Northland under Minn. Stat. § 65B.47 (2000), which establishes the priority for coverages available when the loss results from use of a vehicle for employment. For example, the statute provides that if a person is insured in a vehicle provided by his employer, basic economic loss benefits are to be provided by the insurance carrier covering the vehicle, or, if none, the carrier covering the injured person. Minn. Stat. § 65B.47, subd. 1 (2000). The statute provides that where two or more obligations to pay benefits are applicable, the reparation obligor against whom a claim is asserted must pay the claim as if wholly responsible, but that obligor may bring an action for contribution against other obligors. Id., subd. 5. The statute also allows for an action in subrogation. Id., subd. 6. Great West claimed that the injury for which it paid benefits was partially caused by the June 1988 accident when the claimant was insured by Northland and sought reimbursement under Minn. Stat. § 65B.47 from Northland for a portion of the benefits Great West paid its insured. Great West, 548 N.W.2d at 280. We were asked whether under section 65B.47, a no-fault carrier may by subrogation or contribution obtain reimbursement from another no-fault carrier for paid benefits that it contends were for injuries resulting from an earlier car accident, when the claimant was insured by the other carrier. We noted that subrogation in the no-fault context is purely a creature of statute and that the definition of "loss" under Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 7, implies that, for purposes of subrogation and contribution under section 65B.47, only one accident can be deemed the cause of an injury. Great West, 548 N.W.2d at 280-81. We concluded that the authorization for actions for subrogation and contribution in Minn. Stat. § 65B.47 does not apply to a multiple accident situation. Great West, 548 N.W.2d at 281. Great West is distinguishable from the case at bar because Great West involved subrogation and contribution claims under section 65B.47, which establishes priorities between insurers for a single accident. See Scheibel v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 615 N.W.2d 34, 37 (Minn.2000) ("[O]ur holding in Great West only addressed whether an insurer has a right of subrogation under the no-fault act."). Here we deal with a more elementary and basic concern: whether the trier of fact, in this instance the arbitrator, may consider whether the medical expenses for which reimbursement is sought are for injuries caused by an earlier nonautomobile accident, in this instance a fall from a horse. Pususta nonetheless relies on language in Great West indicating that attribution of medical expenses to prior accidents or injuries is improper in the no-fault context. In explaining the imposition of the entire expense on Great West, we stated: Great West accepted [the claimant] as an insured with whatever physical condition he may have had at that time, and it is not for Great West to either refuse payment of benefits for that portion of his disability caused by a previous injury or is it to seek subrogation from Northland therefore. 548 N.W.2d at 281 (emphasis added).[4] The implication of this ruling in Great *554 West arose in Scheibel, where the claimant was injured in a March 1996 collision for which the insurer paid $3,558 in medical expenses. Less than two months later the claimant again injured his back in an auto accident requiring medical care. The insurer, the same for both accidents, attributed all medical expenses to coverage for the second accident, exhausting the $20,000 limit and leaving the claimant with approximately $6,500 in unpaid medical expenses. Scheibel, 615 N.W.2d at 36 n. 1. In Scheibel we noted that our statement in Great West regarding attributing benefits to a previous injury was "not a part of our holding." Scheibel, 615 N.W.2d at 38. We nonetheless relied on this language to require the insurer in Scheibel to pay the maximum policy limit for injuries "regardless of the extent to which each accident contributed to the injuries." 615 N.W.2d at 39. Thus, the question presented is whether our decisions in Great West and Scheibel, to the extent they reject attributing medical expenses to previous accidents, apply where the previous accident is not an automobile accident.[5] We stated in Scheibel: [The insurer] does not dispute that if Scheibel had been in two accidents and suffered distinct and separable injuries, medical expenses from each injury would have been separately compensable up to the policy maximum of $20,000 for each accident. We see no reason why the same principles should not apply when the second accident exacerbates an injury sustained in an earlier accident. It would be an absurd result to cut off recovery for an injury from the first accident merely because an intervening accident aggravates the same injury. 615 N.W.2d at 38-39.[6] Applying the same rationale used in Scheibel to these facts, *555 there can be no dispute that if Pususta had injured her foot in the horse-riding accident and injured her shoulder in the auto accident, medical expenses for the foot injury would not be attributable to the no-fault auto carrier. To hold the insurer liable for medical expenses resulting from a nonautomobile accident conflicts with the statutory language limiting the definition of loss to injuries "arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle * * *." Minn. Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 1.[7] Both Scheibel and Great West must be read in the context in which they arosea dispute over which no-fault policy the losses should be attributed to, where some of the losses arguably resulted from a prior auto accident. Great West stands for the proposition that where the legislature has not provided for contribution or subrogation between insurers in this context, we will not read such a right into the statute. 548 N.W.2d at 281. Scheibel stands for the proposition that an insurer cannot minimize its exposure by attributing all losses to one policy, and that within the no-fault context, the overriding principle is that an injured party be fully compensated to the limits of mandated insurance. 615 N.W.2d at 38-39. Neither Great West nor Scheibel prohibits an arbitrator from determining whether the medical expenses for which the insured is seeking reimbursement from the no-fault carrier result from injuries that arise out of the car accident, that is, the use or maintenance of a motor vehicle. In contrast to Great West and Scheibel, here we apparently have some medical expenses arising within the no-fault system and some arising outside that system. Within the no-fault system, i.e., where there are multiple auto accidents involved, imposing liability solely on the insurer at the time of the most recent accident to the extent such coverage fully compensates the claimant serves the legislative goals of ensuring prompt payment of expenses and minimizing litigation. Minn. Stat. § 65B.42 (2000); Scheibel, 615 N.W.2d at 37. Where, as here, one cause of injury arises within the no-fault system and one outside that system, our focus is on whether the loss arose out of the use of an automobile and whether reimbursement is for only those medical expenses resulting from injuries caused by the use or maintenance of an automobile. *556 Pususta relies on the above-quoted language in Great West in arguing that State Farm must pay for all of her medical expenses because the insurer must take the insured with whatever condition she had at the time of the accident. See Great West, 548 N.W.2d at 281. However, there is no indication in the No-Fault Act that the legislature intended to modify the well-settled concept from tort law that damages are those attributable to a particular injury and the aggravation of a pre-existing physical condition. See Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 537 N.W.2d 271, 275 n. 2 (Minn.1995) (stating compensatory damages are the "natural, necessary and usual result of the * * * occurrence in question."); Leubner v. Sterner, 493 N.W.2d 119, 122 (Minn.1992) (stating aggravation damages ensure that defendant pays only for the harm he causes, not the harm plaintiff already had); Nelson v. Twin City Motor Bus Co., 239 Minn. 276, 280, 58 N.W.2d 561, 563 (1953). Requiring compensation for any aggravation of a pre-existing condition is what is meant by accepting the insured with any conditions she had at the time.[8] Accepting the insured with the conditions she had does not mean that the insurer is liable for the expenses that the pre-existing condition, "running its normal course, would itself have caused if there had been no aggravation * * *." Nelson, 239 Minn. at 280, 58 N.W.2d at 563. The insurer is liable for the expenses related to injuries caused or aggravated by the automobile accident. Limiting damages in this way insures that the insurer will pay only for the damages caused by the accident and not for the pre-existing physical condition. Leubner, 493 N.W.2d at 122. Applied to a no-fault case, the limitation ensures that a no-fault insurer pays only medical expenses for injuries arising out of the use of an automobile and not medical expenses for injuries caused by a nonautomobile accident.[9] Thus, we reverse and remand and instruct the arbitrator to award those reasonable medical expenses for treatment of injuries caused by, or aggravated by, the automobile accident. The arbitrator must determine the extent to which the medical expense relates to an injury that was a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of the vehicle. North River, 346 N.W.2d at 114. Medical expenses for injuries caused solely by the horse-riding accident shall be denied. Reversed and remanded. *557 GILBERT, Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion and would affirm the court of appeals. The majority opinion is based on equitable apportionment, which is an approach that we have specifically rejected for subrogation claims to determine medical expense benefits provided for in the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (No-Fault Act). Great West Cas. Co. v. Northland Ins. Co., 548 N.W.2d 279 (Minn.1996). The no-fault system was designed to eliminate this type of dispute on minor claims once a compensable loss occurs, and we have so held in other contexts. In fact, recently we stated "we disagree with the court's apportioning of PIP benefits, and we consider them payable by the insurer when the insured incurs a loss." Id. at 281 n. 4. The majority decision now reverses this directive and ignores the facts supporting the arbitrator's and trial court's ultimate decisions, awarding benefits in this case. Here, the district court confirmed the medical expenses awarded in arbitration. It found that notwithstanding some comments made by the arbitrator relating to legal issues that "[a]ny allusion by the arbitrator to case law regarding apportionment was secondary to the facts which he had already decided. While defendant asserts that [the arbitrator] exceeded his powers, it has failed to make a clear showing that that was, in fact, the case." The trial court reasoned "[t]he arbitrator clearly decided that Plaintiff had been injured in the auto accident of December 6, 1997, and that she received chiropractic care related to that accident." Two experts were called upon in the arbitration hearing to give their opinion on the reasonable and necessary medical treatment required because of this automobile accident. Valerie Hoffman, D.C., offered an opinion on behalf of Pususta that the rehabilitation services being performed were for neck and upper back, not her lower back that was being treated before the automobile accident. David Olson, D.C., on behalf of State Farm, rendered an opinion authorizing paying the bills for medical rehabilitation through the beginning of April 1998, but none after that because that is when Pususta reached preaccident status. Accordingly, there was conflicting medical testimony, one opinion requiring additional treatment and the other terminating the treatment. The court of appeals affirmed the arbitrator's decision considering the guidance provided the supreme court in Great West and could not say that the arbitrator and the district court erred in refusing to apportion the respondent's medical expenses. Pususta v. State Farm Ins. Cos., No. C8-99-1068, 1999 WL 1101388 (Minn.App.1999). Now, without calling the relief on remand apportionment, the majority reverses both of the lower courts with an order that the arbitrator must determine the extent to which the medical expenses relate to the use of a motor vehicle and "medical expenses for injuries caused by the horse riding accident shall be denied." This directive obviously calls for apportionment between accidents, which the arbitrator also determined was appropriate, but he felt constrained by our precedent in Great West. However, adopting the principle of apportionment severely interferes with the statutory framework that is "to govern the effect of advance payments prior to final settlement of liability" once a compensable loss occurs. Minn. Stat. § 65B.42, subd. 5 (2000). The facts in this case highlight the problems that would be created by the majority's opinion. Pususta was 18 years old at the time of the automobile accident, which occurred on December 6, 1997. Before *558 authorizing any medical payments for that accident, State Farm ordered an independent medical examination. State Farm then decided to pay medical bills incurred through February 1998, but then stopped any further payments. Five months went by with no further payments and no denial of benefits. In the meantime, medical expenses had been incurred by an 18-year-old woman totaling more than $4,000. An independent medical examination was completed July 16, 1998, and an opinion rendered on July 23, 1998, 7 months after the automobile accident. Then, retroactively, Dr. Olson decided no further medical bills should be paid beyond the beginning of April of 1998. Now, the majority opinion will compel an independent medical examination whenever there is a preexisting no-auto-related accident case with resulting expense, uncertainty and delays now being thrust into every decision on payment. In most cases, this will lead to retroactive approval or denial of medical expenses incurred to treat in a timely fashion injuries arising from an automobile accident. This result will occur even though it is undisputed that early and proper rehabilitation treatment usually tends to mitigate everybody's damages. This is not to say that medical reimbursement would continue forever because there are statutory dollar limits applied to every policy and an arbitrator still would have the ability to terminate payments for medical expenses when pre-accident condition status has been reached. The No-Fault Act provides for such a determination now and that is why apportionment principles should be rejected for the same reason we rejected those principles for subrogation claims. In Great West, we reasoned that a subrogation right must be found, if at all in the No-Fault Act, in that we do not recognize a separate common law right of subrogation in the no-fault context. 548 N.W.2d at 281. This interpretation was reacknowledged in Scheibel v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 615 N.W.2d 34, 37 (Minn.2000), and the reasoning should be followed in this case. In Great West, we disallowed a subrogation claim against Northland brought by Great West who insured an individual injured in an automobile accident 3 years after the first automobile accident. 548 N.W.2d at 281. The majority attempts to distinguish this case from Great West depending on whether some of the medical expenses arose within or outside the no-fault system. Great West involved a multiple auto accident and the aggravation of a preexisting condition that resulted in a dispute between different insurance companies involved at the time of the two accidents, one in June 1988 and the second in June 1991. 548 N.W.2d at 279-80. We held that "[t]he clear implication is that only one accident can be deemed to be the cause of an injury for purposes of subrogation under section 65B.47." Id. at 281. This "one accident" precedent from Great West is even more compelling in this case. As stated by the legislature, the purpose of the No-Fault Act is to relieve the severe economic distress of uncompensated victims of automobile accidents without regard to whose fault caused the accident and to encourage appropriate medical and rehabilitation treatment by assuring prompt payment for the treatment. Minn. Stat. § 65B.42. It is undisputed that the respondent has suffered a compensable loss in an automobile accident, is an injured person, and is entitled to reasonable medical expense benefits and the assurance of prompt payment. Minnesota Statutes § 65B.44, subdivision 2, provides for the reimbursement of "all reasonable expenses for necessary * * * medical * * * and rehabilitative services * * *." It is also undisputed that the respondent has a preexisting chronic medical injury due to a horse-riding accident. *559 The majority opinion deviates from the stated purpose of the Act and holds that the statutory language defining loss incorporates the elements of causation into the determination of what medical expense benefits are reimbursable. The majority opinion relies on two of our cases on causation between the use of an automobile and an injury. In Continental Western, we found that there was the requisite degree of causation between injuries and the use of a car when a gun was fired out of a moving vehicle causing injury to another party. Cont'l W. Ins. Co. v. Klug, 415 N.W.2d 876, 878 (Minn.1987). North River involved an injury from a trailer attached to a motor vehicle. N. River Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 346 N.W.2d 109, 114 (Minn.1984). However, these cases are not helpful because they do not involve PIP benefits and, in this case, it is undisputed that the second injury arose out of the use of an automobile. Although our decision in Great West involved a subrogation claim between insurers for an injury caused by more than one auto accident, the legal principles, which support the denial of a subrogation claim, apply equally as well to the facts in this case. The majority's decision in this case has the same * * * potential to trigger precisely what the legislature appears to have attempted to avoid in adopting the term "the accident"-finger pointing among insurers claiming that another carrier was responsible for some portion of the insured's disability. Further, as we noted above, it introduces the fault-based concept of subrogation into allocation of loss independent of fault, a step we are unwilling to take without explicit statutory authority notably absent here. That the entire responsibility for Neulieb's disability caused by the accident occurring while Great West was on the policy should fall on Great West is neither unfair nor unjust. Great West accepted Neulieb as an insured with whatever physical condition he may have had at the time, and it is not for Great West to either refuse payments of benefits for that portion of his disability caused by a previous injury or is it to seek subrogation from Northland therefore.

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Lynch v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · 2001 4 citations

*187 [a]n insured wishing to provide greater protection from his own negligence for himself and his passengers should purchase additional liability insurance coverage; allowing underinsured coverage in the instant case would, in essence, be allowing an individual to increase liability coverage by purchasing less expensive underinsured coverage. Id. We noted that this was the same concern we expressed in Myers in upholding the validity of the owned-vehicle exclusion. Id. We again confronted the relationship between an owned-vehicle exclusion and coverage conversion in Petrich v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 427 N.W.2d 244 (Minn.1988). Paul Petrich was injured in a single-vehicle accident while occupying an uninsured vehicle owned by his stepfather. Id. at 245. Petrich sought benefits under the uninsured motorist coverage in a policy on two other vehicles owned by the stepfather. Id. at 245. The insurer denied coverage based on an owned-vehicle exclusion. Id. This court upheld the application of the exclusion in those circumstances, relying on the rationale of Myers that an insurer can exclude first-party coverage where it would be used to substitute for more expensive liability protection. Id. We stated that "Myers * * * rests on the principle that vehicle owners may not purchase first party coverage and expect it to function as liability protection. The concern is * * * the conversion of one type of insurance into another." Id. at 246. The issue came before us again in Thommen v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 437 N.W.2d 651 (Minn.1989), after the legislature had amended the No-Fault Act UM/UIM provisions in 1985.[3]Thommen involved a dispute between Thommen's insurer and the insurer of the vehicle in which Thommen was injured, American Family Insurance Group, about which insurer was responsible for UIM coverage for Thommen's injuries. Id. at 653. The court acknowledged that the 1985 amendments reflected a preference for the insurer of the occupied vehicle as the first source of UIM coverage, but the American Family policy contained an owned-vehicle exclusion that would bar UIM coverage if it was valid and enforceable. Id. at 653-54. We concluded that the statutory changes were not intended to change "the fundamental character of UIM coverage," and that the rationale of Myers remained valid, reiterating that "to hold the insurer liable to pay damages resulting from the negligent use of the insured motor vehicle pursuant to both the liability coverage and the UIM coverage is to convert the first-party UIM coverage into third-party insurance, `treating it essentially the same as third-party liability coverage.'" Thommen, 437 N.W.2d at 654 (quoting Myers, 336 N.W.2d at 291). Appellant American Family contends that these cases established a fundamental principle inherent in the No-Fault Act's concept of UIM coverage that precludes UIM-to-liability coverage conversion even if the policy terms would otherwise allow it. Lynch counters that there is no coverage conversion here, and even if there were, this court's decisions establish only that policy language may prevent coverage conversion, but not that it is prohibited by the No-Fault Act. *188 We first address whether providing UIM coverage from the American Family policy would result in the kind of coverage conversion discussed in Myers and its progeny. We explained in those cases that liability and UIM coverage protect the insured against different types of risks. Liability insurance is third-party coverage, meaning that it pays for damage the insured is legally obligated to pay another person, a third party, for bodily injury arising out of the insured's ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. Myers, 336 N.W.2d at 291; Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3(2) (2000). UIM coverage, by contrast, is first-party coverage, meaning that it compensates an insured under his own policy if he is legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle. Myers, 336 N.W.2d at 291; Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 19 (2000). Thus, third-party coverage protects an insured from having to pay damages when the insured's negligence causes injury to others, while first-party coverage protects an insured when someone else's negligence causes injury to the insured and the tortfeasor has insufficient liability coverage. Meyer, 371 N.W.2d at 537 ("Liability insurance is purchased by an owner of a vehicle to protect passengers in that vehicle [and others] from the negligent driving of the owner or another driving the vehicle. Underinsured coverage * * * is intended to protect against * * * the risk that a negligent driver of another vehicle will have failed to purchase adequate liability insurance * * *."). Here, all injuries to Ian Lynch arising from this accident were caused by Kathleen Lynch's negligent driving. American Family has paid the maximum liability benefits provided by the Lynch policy for Kathleen Lynch's negligence. In these circumstances, paying UIM benefits from the same policy results in paying additional benefits for the injuries caused by the negligence of the insured, Kathleen Lynch. That is the essence of liability coverage. The court of appeals concluded there is no coverage conversion here because the UIM coverage would be based not on the inadequacy of Kathleen Lynch's liability insurance under the American Family policy, but on the inadequacy of the liability coverage on the van under the Western National policy. The fact that the underinsured vehicle in this case, the Coleman van, was not insured by American Family does not change the fact that Kathleen Lynch's negligence was the exclusive cause of damages. The Coleman vehicle's liability coverage, in this instance for a permissive driver, was triggered exclusively by Kathleen Lynch's negligence. In terms of coverage conversion analysis, it makes no difference whether Kathleen Lynch was driving a nonowned or an owned vehicle. Bradford Lynch seeks to recover UIM benefits from a policy that already paid liability benefits for the same negligent act. As we said in Myers, "[t]o now collect further under the same insurer's underinsured motorist coverage would be to convert the underinsured motorist coverage into third-party insurance, treating it essentially the same as third-party liability coverage." 336 N.W.2d at 291. See also Thommen, 437 N.W.2d at 654 ("[T]o hold the insurer liable to pay damages resulting from the negligent use of the insured motor vehicle pursuant to both the liability coverage and the UIM coverage is to convert the first-party UIM coverage into third-party insurance * * *."). We explained in Meyer that "[a]n insured wishing to provide greater protection from his own negligence for himself and his passengers should purchase additional liability insurance coverage; allowing underinsured coverage in the instant case would, in essence, be allowing an individual *189 to increase liability coverage by purchasing less expensive underinsured coverage." 371 N.W.2d at 537. Even though there are two liability policies involved here, one for the vehicle owner and one for the negligent driver, providing UIM benefits based on the negligence of the driver whose policy already paid liability coverage would have precisely the impact described in Meyer. We therefore conclude that providing UIM coverage in these circumstances constitutes coverage conversion. Having decided that payment of UIM benefits would result in coverage conversion, we must address whether the No-Fault Act impliedly prohibits that coverage conversion. American Family argues that the series of cases discussed above establishes that coverage conversion is contrary to the principles of the No-Fault Act and therefore cannot be permitted, even where the terms of the insurance policy would provide UIM coverage. In three of the four cases, Myers, Petrich and Thommen, the issue was whether an owned-vehicle exclusion could be enforced by the insurer to defeat UIM or UM coverage.[4]Myers, 336 N.W.2d at 291; Petrich, 427 N.W.2d at 245; Thommen, 437 N.W.2d at 653. As discussed above, we concluded that the exclusions did not conflict with the requirements of the No-Fault Act because their effect was not to deny required UIM benefits, but rather to prevent the use of UIM coverage as a substitute for liability coverage, that is, coverage conversion. In essence, we decided that because the UIM coverage mandated by the Act is not intended to serve as a supplement for the insured's inadequate liability coverage, an insurer can write and enforce an exclusion that precludes that coverage conversion. In Meyer there was no owned-vehicle exclusion because the coverage was implied under the statute. 371 N.W.2d at 536. The issue, then, was what is the minimum UIM coverage required by the No-Fault Act. We held that the "other vehicle" language in the statutory definition of UIM coverage precluded payment of both liability and UIM coverage from the same policy. 371 N.W.2d. at 537. We also noted that the reasoning of Myers that UIM coverage is not meant as a substitute for the insured's liability coverage supported that interpretation of the Act. 371 N.W.2d at 537. We do not read our discussion of coverage conversion in these cases as interpreting the No-Fault Act to prohibit coverage conversion, especially given that there is no language in the Act to that effect. Rather, we discerned that the concept of UIM coverage required by the Act does not include the provision of UIM benefits when the effect is to convert the UIM coverage into third-party liability coverage. Consequently, we held that an insurer may permissibly preclude such coverage conversion with an owned-vehicle exclusion and that UIM coverage will not be implied as a matter of law where it would result in coverage conversion. There is, nevertheless, nothing in the No-Fault Act or in our decisions concerning coverage conversion that prohibits an insurer from writing UIM coverage that allows conversion. Here, unlike Myers, Petrich and Thommen, the owned-vehicle exclusion does not prevent UIM coverage. Unlike Meyer, where the policy did not include UIM coverage and the *190 minimum requirement was therefore implied, here there is an express coverage clause providing UIM coverage that, in these circumstances, is broader than the UIM coverage required by statute. The American Family policy may provide more coverage than required by the Act. The No-Fault Act explicitly provides that parties to an automobile insurance contract may agree to more benefits and coverage than the minimum required by the Act. Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 7 (2000). American Family contends that allowing first-party UIM benefits to function as third-party liability benefits would undermine the coordinated scheme of automobile insurance created by the No-Fault Act and would thus violate legislative intent. We are not convinced that an insurance policy that permits coverage conversion so undermines the system that it is implicitly prohibited by the Act. If the policy provides the coverage required under the No-Fault Act, the policy can hardly be said to undermine the intent of the No-Fault Act. The American Family policy provides both the liability and UIM benefits required by law. Although we recognized in Meyer that coverage conversion can be detrimental to the interests of insurers, our cases stand for the proposition that insurers can protect themselves against that effect in the terms of their policies. Where the policy language does not provide that protection, we will not read it into the policy as a requirement of the No-Fault Act. In conclusion, Bradford Lynch seeks UIM benefits from his American Family policy that in effect convert first-party UIM coverage into third-party liability coverage. Nonetheless, because the American Family policy unambiguously allows recovery of UIM benefits in these circumstances and the No-Fault Act does not explicitly or impliedly prohibit parties to an automobile insurance contract from agreeing to terms that allow coverage conversion, Lynch is entitled to his UIM benefits under the American Family policy. Affirmed. GILBERT, Justice (concurring specially).

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Sheung Kwong v. Depositors Insurance Co. · 2001 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Great West Casualty Co. · 2001 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

American Family Insurance Group v. Schroedl · 2000 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Scheibel v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. · 2000 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Becker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · 2000 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

American National Property & Casualty Co. v. Loren · 1999 1 citation

. Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 2 (1998).

Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · 1999 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Ka Ying Vue v. State Farm Insurance Companies · 1998 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Great West Casualty Co. v. Northland Insurance Co. · 1996 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Hermeling v. Minnesota Fire & Casualty Co. · 1996 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Richards v. Milwaukee Insurance Co. · 1994 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Anderson v. American Casualty Co. · 1993 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Patrin v. Progressive Rehab Options · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Employers Mutual Companies v. Nordstrom · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Costello v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · 1991 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

McClain v. Begley · 1991 6 citations

465 N.W.2d 680 (1991) Claudia McCLAIN, as Trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Michelle Elizabeth McClain, decedent, petitioner, Appellant, v. Bridget J. BEGLEY, petitioner, Appellant, Christine S. Meyers, Defendant, Altra Auto Rental, Inc., a division of Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc., Respondent. and ALTRA AUTO RENTAL, INC., A DIVISION OF AGENCY RENT-A-CAR, INC., Respondent, v. FIREMEN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, petitioner, Appellant. No. C1-89-2206. Supreme Court of Minnesota. February 15, 1991. Eric Magnuson, Andrew M. Walsh, Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundel, William M. Hart, R. Gregory Stephens, Meagher & Geer, Minneapolis, for appellants. Scott W. Johnson, James A. O'Neal, Paul W. Heirling, Faegre & Benson, Bonita J. Girard, Bassford, Hecht, Lochhart & Mullia, Minneapolis, for respondents. Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc. *681 YETKA, Justice. This case is here on appeal from the court of appeals, which reversed summary judgment awarded by the trial court on motion of plaintiff McClain. We reverse the court of appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court. Petitioner McClain brought an action against Altra Auto Rental, Inc., Bridget Begley, and Christine Meyers for the wrongful death of her daughter, Michelle McClain. The death resulted from a car accident involving a car rented by Michelle McClain, Begley and Meyers from Altra. Altra insured the rental car through a plan of self-insurance under the no-fault act. Allstate insured Begley, the driver of the rental car at the time of the accident, through her parents' liability policy. After McClain commenced suit, Altra brought a declaratory judgment action against Allstate to determine priority of coverage. In January 1988, McClain moved for partial summary judgment, claiming that Altra's self-insurance plan provided primary coverage to the extent of the $500,000 liability limits stated on the certificate of insurance. The motion was granted on April 7, 1988. Altra's petition for discretionary review was denied by the court of appeals. Thereafter, the parties stipulated to damages and the entry of judgment with the express understanding that Altra would appeal the summary judgment decision.[1] The court of appeals reversed the trial court, holding that, in the absence of express liability coverage limits in a self-insurance plan, a self-insurer is liable only for the statutory minimum amount of coverage. McClain v. Begley, 457 N.W.2d 230 (Minn.App.1990). Respondents McClain and Begley appealed. This court granted respondents' petition for review. This case arises from an automobile accident on March 30, 1986, in Missouri. Michelle McClain, Bridget Begley, Christine Meyers, and Shannon Murphy, all college students, planned a spring-break trip to Padre Island, Texas. Prior to the trip, Murphy contacted Altra about renting a car. An agent of Altra told Murphy that, to qualify for the least expensive rate, she must rent the car as a replacement for an insured, but out-of-service car. Murphy told the agent that McClain had an out-of-service car insured through Firemen's Fund Insurance. On March 21, 1986, the Altra agent delivered the car to Murphy and Meyers. Meyers signed the rental contract which stated that Altra did not provide liability coverage on the car and that the car was to be insured by the lessee. A few days after the rental contract was signed, the agent filled in the rental form with a fictitious policy number, agent, and agency phone number. On March 30, 1986, as the women were returning from the trip, Begley fell asleep at the wheel and collided with a car parked on the shoulder of an interstate in Missouri. McClain was killed in the collision. Altra insures its cars through a plan of self-insurance. As a self-insured entity, Altra completed and filed the forms developed by the Department of Commerce. One of the forms included a question and an answer which we repeat as follows: 12. List all excess insurance applicable to motor vehicle accidents, with name(s) of insurer(s), policy number(s) and limits of liability. Lexington Insurance Company Policy No. 552 8742 Effective: 12-31-86/87 Amount of Insurance: $2,500,000 in excess of $500,000 S.I.R. [Self-insured Retention] The above question and answer was part of a form entitled "REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM INSURING LIABILITIES UNDER THE MINNESOTA NO-FAULT AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT." The parties to the lawsuit entered into a stipulation which, in substance, provided the following: Altra owned the car in *682 which McClain was killed. The negligence of Begley, the driver, was the sole cause of McClain's death. The total damages for the death are $155,000. If the trial court orders are upheld on final appeal, Altra will pay $155,000 to plaintiff. If Altra's obligation is limited to the statutory minimum, Altra will pay $30,000 and Allstate will pay $100,000. As a result of all this pre-appeal maneuvering, the parties agree and have submitted to the court the following: 1. The question of the applicability of Minnesota's car owner's responsibility act is not raised and is thus not before this court. 2. Altra sought protection of its fleet under the Minnesota no-fault act. 3. Altra, through its rental agreements, had attempted to shift responsibility for all liability coverage to the lessees of its cars and absolve itself of any liability. This has been held illegal by the Minnesota Department of Commerce. 4. Thus, the sole issue for this court to decide involves the interpretation of the no-fault insurance act, Minn. Stat. §§ 65B.41-65B.71 (1990), and its applicability to self-insurers. Interpretation of statutes is a question of law. Hibbing Educ. Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn.1985). The parties have stipulated to the facts and to the amount of damages. This court thus must determine whether the court of appeals erred in its application of the law to the facts of this case. This court is not bound by the decision of the court of appeals. A.J. Chromy Constr. Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Serv., Inc., 260 N.W.2d 579 (Minn.1977). The Minnesota no-fault act imposes a duty on the owner of a motor vehicle to maintain "a plan of reparation security * * * insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for injury and property damage by any person arising out of the ownership * * * of the vehicle." Minn. Stat. § 65B.48, subd. 1. The owner has the choice of self-insuring or buying an insurance policy. The act states five purposes: to relieve the "severe economic distress of uncompensated victims," to prevent overcompensation, to provide prompt payment, to reduce litigation, and to correct abuses of the tort liability system. Minn. Stat. § 65B.42. The obligations imposed on self-insurers should reflect those goals. Self-insurance is the functional equivalent of a commercial insurance policy. The law of workers' compensation treats self-insurers no differently than those who insure by commercial policy. The purpose of either form of insurance is to compensate victims appropriately. The certificate filed with the commissioner is the functional equivalent of an insurance policy. While under the Minnesota no-fault statutes, Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3(1), any insurer is required to have liability coverage of $30,000 as a minimum, Altra made a deliberate representation to the Department of Commerce to provide coverage in excess of that amount, namely, $500,000. Based on that representation and other data supplied to the Department of Commerce, Altra was accepted as a self-insured. It should thus be held to the representations that it made. The cases and precedent cited in the briefs are simply not applicable to the unique facts of this case, for the decision in this case is based more on equitable estoppel principles than on any other. The court of appeals is thus reversed and judgment of the trial court reinstated. COYNE and GARDEBRING, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter. SIMONETT, Justice (concurring). I join in the majority opinion but my reasoning, only sketched out here, is different. A Minnesota car owner can satisfy the requirements of our No-Fault Act by purchasing a liability policy with limits of $30,000 for bodily injury to any one person, $60,000 for any one accident, and $10,000 *683 property damage. Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3(1). These limits, of course, do not limit the car owner's tort liability; a car owner remains liable for any tort exposure over the policy limits. By purchasing minimum coverage, a car owner in this state keeps his car registered, keeps his driver's license, and avoids criminal penalties. Minn. Stat. § 65B.67. Policy limits measure the amount of protection afforded the insured. Also, policy limits, whether the statutory minimum or higher, are significant in determining when other auto liability policies covering the driver (if such is the case) will come into play. A self-insurer must approach these risk management problems a little differently than a regular policyholder. The self-insurer's exposure is its tort liability exposure, which the self-insurer may limit by purchasing an excess policy for claims against it over and above a certain amount. In relation to this excess policy, the self-insurer's underlying personal exposure is its self-insured retention. This self-insurance, by statutory definition, is a plan of reparation. Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 15. Consequently, there is no need for a self-insurer to file any detailed plan. See Anderson v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 443 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Minn.App.1989) ("[S]elf-insureds are not required to have the carefully worded, highly specific policy provisions, declarations and coverage limits required of insurance companies."). Ordinarily, a self-insured retention operates much the same as stated limits in a regular insurance policy. But not necessarily. Arguably, a self-insurer may, with respect to certain persons, place limits on its self-insured retention which are lower than the self-insured retention. The self-insurer will try to do this so that if there are other auto insurance policies also covering the driver of the car, such other insurance will no longer be excess but will then apply. In this case, for example, the driver of the rented car, Bridget Begley, had her parents' auto policy affording her coverage, and the question arises as to when this other insurance takes over.[1] In this case Altra, Inc. (the Rental Agency) purchased an excess policy with coverage of "$2,500,000 in excess of $500,000 S.I.R." (the initials refer to Self-Insured Retention). This excess policy, however, contained a "Renter's Exclusion" endorsement which appears to exclude claims such as McClain's arising from accidents while the automobile is being operated by a lessee under a rental agreement.[2] I understand the Rental Agency's position to be that it is self-insured for claims arising when its own employees are driving its cars up to $500,000, after which the excess policy takes over for the next $2.5 million; but that as to claims arising where a lessee is operating the rented vehicle, while the personal exposure, if any, of the Rental Agency as owner of the rented car is limitless, the Rental Agency's self-insurance exposure for the lessee-operator is the minimum statutory limits under the Minnesota No-Fault Act. The issue then becomes: To what extent, if any, does the grant of self-insurance authority to the Rental Agency provide protection to persons operating the Rental Agency's automobiles as lessee-operators? *684 It seems to me there are two possible ways in which the Rental Agency, as a self-insurer, might possibly provide coverage to its lessee-operators. One possibility is that the self-insurer contracts with the lessee to protect the lessee the same as if the lessee had purchased a standard auto liability insurance policy for the rented car. Presumably the Rental Agency could place limits on this contractual coverage by so stating in the rental contract. The problem with this arrangement, however, is that the Rental Agency is a self-insurer, not an insurer. I doubt if a self-insurer is authorized to issue contracts of insurance.[3] The second possibility is to treat the self-insurer as if it had purchased a policy of auto liability insurance for each of its vehicles with itself as the named insured. Such a policy, if purchased, would contain an omnibus clause extending coverage to permissive drivers as additional unnamed insureds.[4] This seems to me the better approach and more in keeping with the concept of self-insurance. This brings up, however, another question: Can omnibus coverage limits ever be less than the coverage limits for the named insured? Courts in other states appear to differ on this. For example, in Balboa Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 17 Ariz. App. 157, 496 P.2d 147 (1972), a rental car agency had purchased a liability policy with $100,000/300,000 coverage but with an endorsement limiting coverage for lessee-operators to $10,000/20,000, the statutory minimum. The court held these differing limits were permissible, relying on Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 107 Ariz. 227, 485 P.2d 552 (1971). Compare Southern Home Ins. Co. v. Burdette's Leasing Service, Inc., 268 S.C. 472, 234 S.E.2d 870 (1977), where the South Carolina Supreme Court held that an auto rental agency's self-insurance covered permissive users including lessee-customers, and that the self-insurance "substitutes for an insurance policy to the extent of the statutory policy requirements." Id., 234 S.E.2d at 872 (emphasis added). Wisconsin has a so-called "omnibus statute" which provides that coverage applicable to the named insured is to be extended to any person using the motor vehicle. Wis.Stat. § 632.32(3), successor to Wis. Stat. § 204.30(3) (1967). In Smith v. National Indemnity Co., 57 Wis.2d 706, 205 N.W.2d 365 (1973), the car rental agency had liability insurance with coverage for itself, as the named owner insured, of $100,000/300,000; an endorsement to the policy, however, limited coverage for renters to $10,000/20,000. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held, applying its omnibus coverage statute, that the car rental agency could not have less coverage for its lessee-customers than for itself. In National Indemnity Co. v. Manley, 53 Cal.App.3d 126, 125 Cal.Rptr. 513 (1975), the rental agency's liability policy contained *685 an endorsement that it was excess over other insurance. The intermediate appellate court held that under the California Insurance Code an insurer could provide in its policy for only minimum statutory coverage for permissive users, but that in this instance the policy clause attempted to exclude permissive users from any coverage whatsoever and, hence, was void. 53 Cal. App.3d at 133, 125 Cal.Rptr. at 513. The court, therefore, ruled that permissive users would be entitled to coverage in the same amount as that specified by the policy for the named insured. See also Globe Indemnity Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 201 Cal.App.2d 9, 17-18, 20 Cal. Rptr. 73, 78-79 (1962). I think arguments can be made both for and against restricting omnibus coverage to minimum statutory limits in cases where a self-insurer is engaged in the business of short-term car rentals.[5] One would need, however, a better record than the one we have here to resolve this question. The record does indicate that the Minnesota Department of Commerce expects a self-insured rental agency to provide liability protection for its lessee-operators, and there is some indication that this coverage can be limited to the statutory minimum.[6] On this record and for this case, I take the following position. The Rental Agency affords protection to its lessee-operators as if it had omnibus coverage. Car rental companies are a special case of self-insurance. The Rental Agency may limit its omnibus coverage at least for lessee-operators to the statutory minimum and it may do this in the rental contract. In this case, however, the Rental Agency went further and attempted to deny all omnibus coverage. This attempt was void.[7] Therefore, left in place for omnibus coverage are the same "limits" for residual liability coverage as for the named insured, see Manley, supra, which in this case is either unlimited or $500,000, depending on how the renter's exclusion is construed. In any event, for the purposes of this case, the Rental Agency is responsible under the stipulation of the parties to pay $155,000. I think the $500,000 self-insured retention refers to residual tort liability, not to first party no-fault benefits, and, therefore, no-fault economic loss benefits are the statutory minimum. KEITH, Chief Justice (concurring). I join in the concurrence of Justice Simonett. *686 TOMLJANOVICH, Justice (concurring). I join in the concurrence of Justice Simonett. NOTES [1] The parties stipulated to damages of $155,000, noting that if the summary judgment decision is reversed, then Altra will pay the statutorily mandated amount, $30,000, and Allstate will pay the limit of its secondary liability, $100,000. Thus, were the summary judgment decision reversed, McClain's estate would be uncompensated for $25,000. [1] The trial court ruled that Altra's self-insurance was primary vis-a-vis Allstate's policy issued to Bridget Begley's parents and affording coverage to Bridget Begley as driver of the rented car. This ruling was not appealed. Altra appeals only the issue of how much of its self-insured retention must be paid on the wrongful death claim before Allstate's policy must pay.

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Roering v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. · 1989 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. · 1988 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

Hanson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · 1987 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Jablonski v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. · 1987 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Marklund v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. · 1987 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

Beukhof v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. · 1985 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Nadeau v. Austin Mutual Insurance Co. · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Burgraff v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. · 1984 14 citations

+ 14 more citations in this opinion.

North River Insurance Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co. · 1984 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Wakefield v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. · 1984 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Arneson v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Nemanic v. Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc. · 1983 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Frank v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. · 1983 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Rademacher v. Insurance Co. of North America · 1983 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Mickelson v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · 1983 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Balderrama v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. · 1982 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Waldbillig v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · 1982 10 citations

+ 10 more citations in this opinion.

Galle v. Excalibur Insurance Co. · 1982 10 citations

317 N.W.2d 368 (1982) Jerry GALLE, et al., Appellants, v. EXCALIBUR INSURANCE CO., Respondent. Robert STANDFIELD, Respondent, v. EXCALIBUR INSURANCE CO., Appellant. Nos. 81-264, 81-343. Supreme Court of Minnesota. May 26, 1982. Lommen, Nelson, Sullivan & Cole and Mark N. Stageberg, Minneapolis, for Excalibur Ins. Co. Peterson Bell & Converse, Willard L. Converse and David S. Anderson, St. Paul, *369 for appellants in 81-264 and respondent in 81-243. Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument. OTIS, Justice. These appeals involve claims under Minn. Stat. § 65B.44 (1980) of the Minnesota No-Fault Insurance Act for injuries sustained while unloading vehicles. Plaintiffs in case # 81-264, Jerry Galle and Frank Schroedl, brought suit individually against their employer's no-fault insurer, Excalibur Insurance Co. The cases were consolidated for hearing before the district court, which granted defendant Excalibur's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Galle and Schroedl appeal from that order. Robert Standfield, plaintiff in case # 81-343, sued to recover no-fault benefits. Summary judgment was granted in his favor, from which order defendant Excalibur appeals. We affirm in both cases. Galle and Schroedl were employed as truck drivers, picking up and delivering freight on assigned city routes. Schroedl injured his back on February 27, 1976, when he attempted to lift a heavy wooden crate from the floor of his truck. He was standing inside the vehicle, which was parked at the loading dock. Galle was injured on November 29, 1978, when he attempted to lift a heavy box. He too was standing inside a stationary trailer, unloading cargo onto the loading dock. Robert Standfield was employed by Advance United to drive a delivery truck, loading and unloading freight at Twin City area locations. On May 5, 1976, he had finished his route and parked his truck at the loading dock. He went to the rear of the trailer intending to open the door and retrieve his two wheel dolly from inside. As the door opened a cable broke, jamming the door and causing Standfield to fall forward and injure himself. All three men have received workers' compensation benefits for lost income due to disabilities sustained and now seek additional no-fault compensation. Minn. Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 1 (1980), states that "basic economic loss benefits shall provide reimbursement for all losses suffered through injury arising out of maintenance or use of a motor vehicle * * *." The material facts regarding the three accidents are not in dispute. Galle and Schroedl were both engaged in loading and unloading heavy boxes inside of stationary vehicles.[1] Standfield was injured when he opened the rear door of his truck to unload his dolly at the end of his delivery route. The only issue on appeal is whether plaintiffs' injuries arose out of the "maintenance or use of a motor vehicle," the definition of which is set forth in Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 3 (1980): "Maintenance or use of a motor vehicle" means maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a vehicle, including, incident to its maintenance or use as a vehicle, occupying, entering into, and alighting from it. Maintenance or use of a motor vehicle does not include * * * (2) conduct in the course of loading and unloading the vehicle unless the conduct occurs while occupying, entering into or alighting from it.

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

Krupenny v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. · 1981 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Tlougan v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Rosenberger v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · 1981 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Griebel v. Tri-State Insurance Co. of Minnesota · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Weiss v. Farmers Insurance Group · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Koons v. National Family Insurance Co. · 1981 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Minnesota Court of Appeals

Western National Insurance Co. v. Nguyen · 2017 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Sandra Castillo as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jose Luis Estrada-Martinez v. American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin · 2017 2 citations

These benefits are not available for loss arising from conduct that occurs within the course of a business of servicing, repairing, or otherwise maintaining a motor vehicle. Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 3. There is an exception to the vehicle-repair exception, however, that applies if the conduct “occurs off the business premises.” Id. Therefore, if Estrada-Martinez’s conduct occurred on business premises—in other words, if his truck qualified as “business premises”— the loss is not covered. If, on the other hand, Estrada-Martinez’s truck does not constitute business premises because that definition is restricted to businesses operating from a fixed location, the no-fault policy would cover the loss.

Bradley Mordini v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · 2016 1 citation

motorcycle or other vehicle with fewer than four wheels.’” Id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 65B.43,

Ronning v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · 2016 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Paek Saengkeo v. Minnesota Automobile Assigned Claims · 2016 3 citations

another person.” Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 4 (2014) (emphasis added). It is undisputed

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Jon P. Hanbury, individually and as father and natural guardian of Andrew and Nick Hanbury v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

· 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Randall Dahler v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company · 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A14-132), (A14-224) v. Angela Mary Lennartson, (A14-132), Katie Foss, (A14-224). · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

· 2014 3 citations

or motor for use primarily upon roads . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 2. The Met

on whether the vehicle is “required to be registered pursuant to chapter 168.” Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 2 (emphasis added). Whether payment for the cost of number plates

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Metropolitan Council · 2014 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

North Star Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jacob Quernemoen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Carmen Schroeder v. Western National Mutual Insurance Company · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Russell v. Haji-Ali · 2013 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Kastning v. State Farm Insurance Companies · 2012 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Pepper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · 2011 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.