Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
Phone: 612.333.3000
Fax: 612.333.8829
Bassford Remele is a full service litigation firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Founded in 1882, the firm represents local, national and international clients in all areas of civil litigation and dispute resolution.
Case Law Update
Date: April 18, 2008 — Minneapolis, MN
During the week of April 18, 2008, the Minnesota appellate courts released opinions on the following topics that may be of interest to our clients:
1.
2.
1. MINNESOTA NO-FAULT ACT - DUPLICATE PAYMENTS EXCLUSION
- The heightened duty of care owed to child trespassers does not apply to a child visiting a private residence accompanied by a parent.
- A landowner’s duty of reasonable care does not require homeowners to protect a visiting child accompanied by a parent from the dangers posed by ordinary household objects.
A parent and child were visiting the home of family friends when the child climbed a bookcase, causing it to fall on him. The child’s father claimed the homeowners were negligent in failing to secure the bookcase and in failing to warn the child of the danger posed by the bookcase. The homeowners argued they owed no duty to protect the child. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court of Appeals held that the homeowners did not owe a duty to protect the child from harm because the incident causing the child’s injury was not foreseeable. The presence of the child’s mother and her paramount duty to provide for her child’s safety was central to the Court’s determination. Additionally, the Court noted that the bookcase causing the injury was a common household object. The Court was careful to limit its conclusions to the circumstances of this particular case, and clearly stated it was not holding that landowners can never have a duty to protect children on their premises.
Foss v. Kincade, A07-313, (Minn. Ct. App. 4/8/08).
2. MINNESOTA NO-FAULT ACT - EXCESS-UIM COVERAGE
- An injured person may only obtain excess-UIM benefits under a policy in which the injured person fits the definition of an “insured” provided by the No-Fault Act.
An auto repair shop employee was injured in an auto accident while test driving a customer’s car. The driver of the other vehicle was negligent and underinsured. After obtaining the liability limits on the negligent driver’s vehicle and the primary-UIM coverage on the customer’s vehicle, the employee asserted a claim for additional UIM benefits under two other policies, his personal automobile insurance policy and his employer’s garage-business policy. The employer’s insurer sought a declaratory judgment to determine the obligations and coverage priorities of the putative UIM insurers. On summary judgment, the district court held that the Minnesota No-Fault Act and the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Becker v. State Farm precluded the employee from recovering UIM benefits under the garage-business policy because he was not a named insured under that policy. The employee was held to be entitled to excess-UIM coverage under his personal policy.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the employee could not recover primary-UIM benefits under the garage-business policy because it did not specifically identify the customer’s car as an insured vehicle. With respect to excess-UIM benefits, the Court held that the employee could not recover under the garage-business policy because he was not a named insured under that policy. The Court explained that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the word “insured” in Becker to mean the definition given it in Minn. Stat. § 65B.43 was controlling, and thus the employee could not recover excess-UIM benefits under the garage-business policy. Because the UIM coverage in the garage-business policy was unavailable, it was unnecessary to address the personal auto insurer’s closeness to the risk argument.
West Bend Mutual Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. and Thomas Oczak, et al., A07-248, A07-357, (Minn. Ct. App. 4/15/08).
[Bassford Remele, A Professional Association, successfully represented the garage-business insurer in this matter.]
Editorial Staff |
C. Lundberg, C. Morris, K. Putney, R.A. Williams, |
Writer this Week: |