Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co.

Decision Date31 January 2022
Docket NumberA21-0917, A21-0918
Citation970 N.W.2d 707
Parties AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent (A21-0917), Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Respondent (A21-0918).
CourtMinnesota Court of Appeals

Michelle D. Hurley, Yost & Baill, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Paul J. Rocheford, Stephen M. Warner, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Cindy L. Butler, Pranschke, Seeger & Fox, Shoreview, Minnesota (for respondents)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Smith, John, Judge.*

ROSS, Judge

After paying benefits to its insureds related to two car collisions, American Family Mutual Insurance Company commenced an arbitration action seeking indemnity from the at-fault drivers’ insurers under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act. Minn. Stat. §§ 65B.41 –71 (2020). Two arbitrators determined, and the district court agreed, that the at-fault drivers were not operating "commercial vehicles" and that American Family is therefore not entitled to indemnity. Because the statute unambiguously defines "passenger automobiles" and the disputed vehicles fall within that definition, they are not commercial vehicles under the no-fault act. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment confirming the arbitration decisions.

FACTS

These consolidated appeals arise from two motor-vehicle collisions. In both, trucks insured by Progressive Direct Insurance Company and Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (collectively, Progressive) struck cars insured by American Family Mutual Insurance Company. In the first collision, Progressive's insured was driving his 2015 Ram 2500 Crew Short truck in Sauk Rapids when he hit a car insured by American Family. American Family paid $20,000 in no-fault benefits for an injured passenger in its insured's vehicle. In the second collision, Progressive's insured ran a red light in Waite Park in her 2014 Ford F-150, hitting and injuring the driver of a car insured by American Family. American Family paid $4,413.45 in no-fault benefits. Progressive did not dispute the fact that its insureds were at fault in both collisions.

American Family initiated arbitration proceedings, demanding that Progressive indemnify it for its payments to the injured persons under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act. The arbitrator in each case refused American Family's indemnity demand. American Family moved the district court to vacate the awards. The district court denied the motions and confirmed both awards.

American Family appealed, and we consolidated the appeals. We now decide them both.

ISSUE

Were the trucks being operated by the at-fault drivers "commercial vehicles" under section 65B.53, subdivision 1 ’s indemnity provision?

ANALYSIS

American Family asks us to reverse the district court's decision confirming the arbitration awards. We accept the arbitrators’ fact findings as final because the appeal challenges orders confirming arbitration awards. Klinefelter v. Crum & Forster Ins. Co. , 675 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Minn. App. 2004). Our focus is exclusively on the district court's legal conclusions, which we review de novo. Gilder v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. , 659 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Minn. App. 2003). Our de novo review leads us to the same conclusion the district court reached.

We begin with the no-fault act. Minn. Stat. §§ 65B.41 –71 (2020). Under the act, automobile insurers generally must reimburse their insureds for "loss suffered through injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle." Minn. Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 1(a). The insurer then has a limited right to indemnity from another insurer covering "a commercial vehicle of more than 5,500 pounds curb weight if negligence in the operation, maintenance or use of the commercial vehicle was the direct and proximate cause of the injury." Minn. Stat. § 65B.53, subd. 1. A "commercial vehicle" is, among other things, "any motor vehicle, other than a passenger vehicle defined in section 168.002, subdivision 24, which has a curb weight in excess of 5,500 pounds apart from cargo capacity." Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 12(b). The parties agree that the trucks insured by Progressive exceed the weight threshold for designation as a commercial vehicle, so the appeal turns on whether they are passenger vehicles as defined in Minnesota Statutes section 168.002, subdivision 24 (2020).

The cross-referenced statute (using a slightly different term) defines "passenger automobile" in three paragraphs. Minn. Stat. § 168.002, subd. 24. Under paragraph (a), " ‘Passenger automobile’ means any motor vehicle designed and used for carrying not more than 15 individuals, including the driver." Id. , subd. 24(a). Paragraph (b) lists motor vehicles excluded from the passenger-automobile category: "motorcycles, motor scooters, buses, school buses, or commuter vans as defined in section 168.126." Id. , subd. 24(b). And paragraph (c) provides a list of passenger automobiles that "includes, but is not limited to," "a vehicle that is a pickup truck or a van as defined in subdivisions 26 and 40." Id. , subd. 24(c). Applying these provisions, the district court concluded that the trucks are passenger automobiles and therefore not commercial vehicles, and it consequently denied American Family's motion to vacate the arbitration awards.

American Family asks us to reverse because "any motor vehicle" in paragraph (a) cannot really be so broad as to mean any motor vehicle. It highlights paragraph (c) and argues that the inclusion of "a pickup truck or a van as defined in subdivisions 26 and 40" implicitly limits passenger automobiles only to trucks that meet the definition of a pickup truck in subdivision 26. Because this implication is reasonable, argues American Family, the statute is ambiguous and we should explore the statute's history to construe its meaning. Our analysis differs.

We base our decision on the terms of the applicable statute. Unless the statute is ambiguous, we begin and end our analysis with the meaning of its text: "When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit." Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2020). A statute is ambiguous only if it may be reasonably interpreted in more than one way. Amaral v. St. Cloud Hosp. , 598 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn. 1999). Applying basic tools of interpretation, we reject American Family's contention that section 168.002, subdivision 24, allows for more than one reasonable interpretation.

We first address American Family's assertion that paragraph (a)’s use of the phrase "any motor vehicle" is ambiguous. We see no ambiguity in the phrase. Counsel for American Family specified at oral argument that the term "any" is the source of the alleged ambiguity because of its overbreadth. That "any" is an encompassing adjective does not render it ambiguous. Indeed, it is because American Family recognizes the meaning of "any" as all-encompassing that it says it has found an ambiguity. "Any" is not ambiguous merely because its literal meaning is expansive, and courts construe "any" literally. See, e.g. , Olson v. Ford Motor Co. , 558 N.W.2d 491, 494 (Minn. 1997) (concluding that statute barring evidence of seatbelt use or nonuse in "any litigation" barred the plaintiff's products-liability claim against a car manufacturer); In re Welfare of Child of D.L.D. , 771 N.W.2d 538, 546 (Minn. App. 2009) ("The word ‘any’ is broadly applied in statutes."). And here, the term "any motor vehicle" is in fact limited by the qualifying language of paragraph (a), which distinguishes trucks designed and used for carrying 15 passengers or fewer from those designed and used for carrying other things, like garbage trucks or dump trucks. Compare Minn. Stat. § 168.002, subd. 24(a) with id. , subd. 37 (2020) (defining "truck" as "any motor vehicle designed and used for carrying things other than passengers"). American Family did not argue or identify any evidence bearing on the Progressive-insured trucks’ designs or use, so we do not address whether the trucks otherwise fall outside the definition in paragraph (a).

We turn next to paragraphs (b) and (c). Our understanding of paragraph (b), which lists motor vehicles expressly excluded from the "passenger automobile" definition, is guided by "the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT