Jacobson v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 47595
| Decision Date | 10 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 47595,47595 |
| Citation | 264 N.W.2d 804 |
| Parties | Daniel Alvin JACOBSON, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Under Minn.St.1971, §§ 65B.25 and 65B.26(d), insurance companies were required only to make underinsured motorist coverage available to policyholders, and such coverage did not become effective until accepted by the insured in writing. On the facts of this case, the insurance carrier took adequate steps to make such coverage available to its insureds within the meaning of the statute.
Chadwick, Johnson & Bridell, Richard J. Chadwick and Mark J. Condon, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Rider, Bennett, Egan, Johnson & Arundel and David F. Fitzgerald and William J. George, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard before KELLY, TODD, and IRVINE, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
Daniel Jacobson was seriously injured in a collision with another vehicle while operating his motorcycle. At the time of the accident, Jacobson carried insurance coverage on the motorcycle with Dairyland Insurance Company and coverage on two family automobiles with Illinois Farmers Insurance Company. The other party involved in the accident had minimum liability coverage of $10,000. Jacobson's claim for damages exceeded that minimum liability coverage, and he brought a declaratory judgment action alleging that by virtue of the failure of Illinois Farmers to make underinsured motorist coverage available, he was entitled to recover under such coverage as a matter of law. The trial court denied relief. We affirm.
On July 18, 1974, Jacobson was injured while operating his motorcycle. As a result of the accident, Jacobson's left leg was amputated below the knee and he now wears an artificial leg. The accident appears to have been caused by the driver of the automobile with which he collided. The driver at fault carried liability insurance in the minimum amount of $10,000 for a single injury, and the insurance on the Jacobson motorcycle was subject to the same limit.
At the time of the accident, Jacobson also owned two automobiles which were insured by Illinois Farmers Insurance Company. These policies carried limits of $50,000 per accident and were undisputedly in force when the accident occurred. Although the policies contained uninsured motorist coverage as required at that time, there was no inclusion of underinsured motorist coverage. 1
A 1971 amendment to the Minnesota insurance statutes provided that effective January 1, 1972, all automobile insurers doing business in Minnesota would be required to make available to their customers underinsured motorist coverage. To satisfy the requirements of the new law, Illinois Farmers prepared a mailing insert or "stuffer" which explained the availability and operation of the new coverage. This information was enclosed on a one-time basis with regular premium notices mailed out to policyholders after June 1, 1972.
At trial, Jacobson and his wife testified to having no recollection of receiving any such stuffer as part of their semiannual premium notice. The Jacobsons conducted their insurance business primarily over the telephone with Lloyd Broberg, a local agent of Illinois Farmers. It appears that Broberg spoke to the Jacobsons several times after the enactment of the underinsured motorist legislation. Broberg testified that he specifically informed Mrs. Jacobson of the availability of the new coverage during the course of a conversation with her concerning the purchase of liability coverage on a new car. Mrs. Jacobson was unable to recall the specifics of this conversation.
Jacobson instituted this action for a declaratory judgment, seeking a ruling that Illinois Farmers was obligated to provide him with underinsured motorist coverage and failed to do so. The trial court found that Illinois Farmers had made underinsured coverage available in conformance with the statute and that Jacobson had not purchased it. On appeal, Jacobson challenges both the legal and factual aspects of this finding. 2
Jacobson contends that Illinois Farmers violated Minn.St.1971, § 65B.25 by failing to have "made available" underinsured motorist coverage as required by the statute. The narrow issue for resolution by this court is whether the actions taken by Illinois Farmers to comply with the statute were sufficient to have made the subject coverage available within the terms of the statute.
Prior to 1972, optional underinsured motorist coverage was not offered in Minnesota. In May 1971, however, Senate File No. 376 was enacted which added underinsured motorist coverage to the existing list of supplemental coverages which were required to be "made available" to the purchasers of automobile liability insurance. The resulting statutory scheme was as follows 65B.25. "No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance shall be renewed, issued, or delivered in this state with respect to any automobile registered or principally garaged in this state unless coverages are made available to the named insured therein or supplemental thereto as set forth in section 65B.26, provided, however, that the named insured shall have the right to accept in writing all or any one or more of such coverages."
65B.26. "Such supplemental insurance coverages shall as a minimum include:
3
Thus, effective January 1, 1972, all insurers were required to make available as an option the underinsured motorist coverage described in § 65B.26(d) above.
At trial, Illinois Farmers introduced testimony which described in detail the mechanized mailing process utilized to inform Illinois Farmers' policyholders of the availability of the new coverage. Opposed to this evidence was the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Jacobson, who stated that in spite of Illinois Farmers' notification procedure, they had not received any information or solicitation concerning the new coverage. Having heard both parties' testimony, the trial court specifically found:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arner v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...Berliner Constr. Co., 79 Md.App. 29, 555 A.2d 523; see also, Hastings v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 318 N.W.2d 849; cf., Jacobson v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 264 N.W.2d 804), and their award is in other respects supported by evidence in the record (see, Caso v. Coffey, 41 N.Y.2d 153, 391 N.Y.S......
-
Tucker v. Country Mut. Ins. Co.
...offer the coverage in a commercially reasonable way by including the notice in a policy renewal statement (Jacobson v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. (Minn.1978), 264 N.W.2d 804), absent from the offer was a description of the limits of the optional coverage, the cost of the coverage, and a......
-
Holman v. All Nation Ins. Co.
...which the legislature has imposed on insurers. All Nation argues that our decision here is controlled by Jacobson v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 264 N.W.2d 804 (Minn.1978), where we construed an earlier version of the section at issue in this action which required that insurers "make av......
-
Dohney v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...to affirmatively opt for UIM coverage or they would not receive the benefits. Minn.Stat. § 65B.25 (1971); Jacobson v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 264 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Minn.1978). At that time, the UIM coverage was a "difference of limits" coverage, which meant that UIM benefits would become avai......