Great West Cas. Co. v. Decker, Case No. 16-cv-3063 (SRN/HB)

Citation358 F.Supp.3d 835
Decision Date07 January 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 16-cv-3063 (SRN/HB)
Parties GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Ruben DECKER, Defendant, and Ruben Decker, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Great West Casualty Company, Counterclaim Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

358 F.Supp.3d 835

Ruben DECKER, Defendant,
Ruben Decker, Counterclaim Plaintiff,
Great West Casualty Company, Counterclaim Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-3063 (SRN/HB)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed January 7, 2019

358 F.Supp.3d 837

Tamara L. Novotny & Michael W. McNee, Cousineau, Van Bergen, McNee & Malone, P.A., 12800 Whitewater Drive, Suite 200, Minnetonka, MN 55343 for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant.

Gregory J. Johnson, G Johnson Law, PLLP, 6688 145th Street West, Apple Valley, MN 55124 for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.


SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge

On December 21, 2012, an 1,800-pound bale of hay tumbled off Ruben Decker's flatbed trailer and onto Decker's back, thereby injuring Decker. In the six years since this accident, Decker has tried, unsuccessfully, to recover insurance money from the insurer of his trailer, Great West Casualty Company. Throughout this time, Great West has steadfastly maintained that Decker is not entitled to insurance benefits under the plain language of his policy. The dueling summary judgment motions at issue here, which cover a variety of claims and counterclaims, are the culmination of this dispute.

After carefully reviewing the record and applicable case law, the Court grants Great West's summary judgment motion in full, and dismisses Decker's counterclaim with prejudice.


A. The Parties

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Great West Casualty Company (hereinafter "Great West") is an insurance company with its principal place of business in Nebraska. (See Compl. [Doc. No. 1] ¶ 1; An. [Doc. No. 5] ¶ 4.)

Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Ruben Decker (hereinafter "Decker") lives in Tea, South Dakota and was, at the time of the accident giving rise to this litigation, a commercial truck driver for KW Trucking, a Minnesota company. (See Compl. ¶ 2; An. ¶ 4.)

Finally, Michael Selle (hereinafter "Selle") lives in Fortuna, North Dakota and, at the time of the accident, ran a small loading center out of his family farm

358 F.Supp.3d 838

for hay being shipped from Canada to the United States. (See generally Def.'s Ex. C [Doc. No. 115-1] ("Selle Deposition").) In short, Selle would unload hay from Canadian trucks, and then re-load said hay onto American trucks for further distribution. (See id. at 58.)1 Although Selle is not a named party, he figures prominently in this litigation.

B. The Insurance Policy

In 2012, the KW Trucking fleet (and, by extension, Decker and his vehicle) was insured by a Great West commercial auto coverage policy. (See Pl.'s Ex. 1 [Doc. No. 107-1] ("Policy").) Most importantly, the Policy provided no-fault (or "personal injury protection") coverage up to $40,000 and liability coverage up to $1,000,000. (Id. )

With respect to no-fault coverage, Great West agreed to pay, "in accordance with the Minnesota No-Fault Act," certain medical and work-loss benefits "incurred with respect to ‘bodily injury’ sustained by an ‘insured’ caused by an ‘accident’ arising out of the maintenance or use of a ‘motor vehicle’ as a vehicle." (Id. Personal Injury Protection § A.) However, in accordance with Minnesota law, Great West specifically excluded coverage for any injuries "aris[ing] out of conduct in the course of loading or unloading any ‘motor vehicle’ unless the conduct occur[ed] while such person [was] ‘occupying’ such motor vehicle." (Id. § C.7; accord Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 3(2).) "Occupying," in this case, meant "in or upon, entering into, or alighting from." (Policy Personal Injury Protection § F.4.)

With respect to liability coverage, Great West agreed to pay "all sums an ‘insured’ legally must pay because of ‘bodily injury’ ... caused by an ‘accident’ or resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered ‘auto.’ " (Id. Liability Coverage § II.A.) The Policy further stated that Great West had a "right and duty to defend any ‘insured’ against a ‘suit’ asking for such damages." (Id. ) As relevant here, an "insured" included "anyone else while using with your permission a covered ‘auto’ you own, hire, or borrow except ," in the context of "moving property to or from a covered ‘auto,’ " "anyone other than your ‘employees,’ partners, members, a lessee or borrower of a covered ‘auto’ or any of their employees." (Id. § II.A.1.b(4).)

C. The December 21, 2012 Accident

On December 21, 2012, Decker drove his semi-truck (and attached flatbed trailer) to Selle's farm in Fortuna, North Dakota. (See Def.'s Ex. B at 34 [Doc. No. 115-1] ("Decker Deposition").) Decker intended to pick up a load of hay and then deliver it to Rock Valley, Iowa. (See Def.'s Ex. H [Doc. No. 115-4] ("Spot Contract").) When Decker arrived at Selle's farm, he parked and exited his vehicle. (See Decker Dep. at 117-18.) Selle then began to load 1,800-pound bales of hay onto Decker's trailer with his tractor, while Decker stood and watched. (See Pl.'s Ex. 3 at 78 [Doc. No. 107-1] ("Selle Deposition II"); Decker Dep. at 142.)2 However, after Selle loaded a stack of hay bales onto Decker's trailer, Decker would secure the load by throwing a strap over the top of the bales. (See id. at 65-68.) Because of a device called a "cheater bar," Decker could perform this task without stepping onto the trailer. (Id. at 65-66.)

358 F.Supp.3d 839

The day took a tragic turn, when, for unclear reasons, at least two hay bales fell off Decker's trailer (from a height of eight to ten feet) and onto Decker, while Decker was preparing to secure a load. (See id. at 72, 143.) According to Decker, at the time of the accident, he was "bending underneath the trailer," and "reaching [down] to hook the strap to the trailer." (Id. at 68; cf. Pl.'s Ex. 4 ("Dec. 27, 2012 Internal Great West Notes") (stating that, in Decker's initial conversation with the Great West adjuster, he told the adjuster that, at the time of the accident, he was "ready to throw another strap" over the hay bales, and "had his back to the trailer").) However, by Decker's own admission, his hand's contact with the underside of the trailer constituted his "only physical contact" with his vehicle during the entire loading process. (Id. at 117; accord Selle Dep. II at 89 (affirming that Decker was "out of his truck" "the entire time" Selle was loading Decker's trailer).) Decker suffered serious injuries to his ribs and femur as a result of this accident, and had to be airlifted to a hospital in Minot, North Dakota, where he was held for three days. (See Pl.'s Ex. 4 [Doc. No. 107-1] ("Dec. 27, 2012 Claim Notes"); see also Pl.'s Ex. 28 at 4 [Doc. No. 107-3] ("Def.'s Answers to Interrogatories") (asserting that Decker has incurred at least $65,000 in medical expenses).)

Importantly, however, neither Selle's tractor nor premises were insured in December 2012. (See Selle Dep. II at 108, 162.) In fact, about one month before the accident, Selle had cancelled the "general liability insurance and insurance that covered [his] equipment." (Id. at 162.)

D. The Subsequent Dispute Over Insurance Coverage

Shortly thereafter, Decker contacted Great West about possible no-fault insurance coverage. However, on January 2, 2013, Great West advised Decker by letter that it would not provide no-fault benefits because Decker's "injuries did not arise out of an accident that occurred while he was occupying his motor vehicle," i.e. , Decker was "standing on the ground" when the hay bales hit him. (Pl.'s Ex. 5 [Doc. No. 107-1] ("Jan. 2, 2013 Denial Letter"); see also supra at 838 (describing the "loading and unloading" exception to no-fault coverage).) Several months later, on September 20, 2013, Decker's counsel, Brent Schafer, advised Great West that, denial letter notwithstanding, Decker would be pursuing the $1 million liability policy limit (presumably on the theory that KW Trucking, a named insured on the Policy, was negligent), along with "other coverage." (Pl.'s Ex. 8 [Doc. No. 107-2] ("Sept. 20, 2013 Schafer Letter").)

A few months later, Schafer advised Great West that Decker would not pursue a negligence claim against KW Trucking under the Policy's liability provision because "further investigation" revealed "no identifiable acts of negligence on behalf of KW Trucking." (See Pl.'s Ex. 10 [Doc. No. 107-2] ("Nov. 27, 2013 Schafer Letter").) Instead, Decker, through Schafer, re-asserted his no-fault claim, on grounds that Decker was, in fact, "occupying" his trailer at the time of the accident (because he was "in contact with the vehicle when the hay bale fell"). (See Pl.'s Ex. 11 [Doc. No. 107-2] ("Feb. 27, 2014 Schafer Letter").) Decker also informed Great West that he would bring suit if Great West did not promptly pay this claim. (Id. ) However, on March 25, 2014, Great West again denied Decker's claim. (See Pl.'s Ex. 14 [Doc. No. 107-2] ("Mar. 25, 2014 Denial Letter").)3

E. The North Dakota Litigation and Further Developments

Almost a year later, on February 27, 2015, Decker added Great West as a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. v. McMorris
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 28 Septiembre 2021 the No-Fault Act than are exclusions to first party coverage." Lobeck , 582 N.W.2d at 251 ; accord Great W. Cas. Co. v. Decker , 358 F. Supp. 3d 835, 851 (D. Minn. 2019) ("[I]nsurers have more leeway to limit coverage 563 F.Supp.3d 978 for ‘third party’ claims than they do for ‘first par......
  • Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. v. McMorris, CIVIL 20-2590 (DWF/KMM)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 28 Septiembre 2021 the No-Fault Act than are exclusions to first party coverage.” Lobeck, 582 N.W.2d at 251; accord Great W. Cas. Co. v. Decker, 358 F.Supp.3d 835, 851 (D. Minn. 2019) (“[I]nsurers have more leeway to limit coverage for ‘third party' claims than they do for ‘first party' claims.”). Minnesot......
  • Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Knutson
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 6 Noviembre 2020
    ..., and Toomey —and Minnesota Court of Appeals— Bauer —decisions, as well as District of Minnesota— Great West Cas. Co. v. Decker , 358 F.Supp.3d 835 (D. Minn. 2019) —and Eighth Circuit— Decker , 957 F.3d 910 —decisions relying up on them. This dramatic change in interpretation of Minnesota's......

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