North Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, C5-83-1837
| Decision Date | 07 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C5-83-1837,C5-83-1837 |
| Citation | 352 N.W.2d 791 |
| Parties | NORTH STAR MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Darryl JOHNSON, et al., Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The motor vehicle exclusion of the insured's farm policy does not exclude coverage for negligence in securing sprayer arms to a farm sprayer bolted to the bed of the insured's pickup truck.
Marcus J. Christianson, Christianson & Christianson, Minneota, for appellant.
S. Todd Rapp, Robins, Zelle, Larson & Kaplan, St. Paul, for respondent Johnson.
Willard L. Converse, St. Paul, for respondent Milwaukee Mut.
Considered and decided by FOLEY, P.J. and SEDGWICK, and RANDALL, JJ., with oral argument waived.
North Star appeals a declaratory judgment holding that the company is obligated to defend Vernon Janssen in a personal injury and wrongful death action arising from an accident in May 1982. North Star contends that it is not obligated to defend Janssen because the damage arose out of the use, operation or maintenance of a vehicle, and Janssen's farm insurance policy does not cover such damages. We affirm.
Vernon Janssen owned a farm sprayer. The self-contained unit had two arms which extend to spray liquid chemicals. When not in use the arms were hooked to the frame of the sprayer. Each spring Janssen bolted the sprayer to the bed of his pickup truck. It remained in the truck until the end of the spraying season.
In May 1982, Janssen was driving home after a social visit when the left arm of the sprayer suddenly extended and smashed into the windshield of a car traveling the other direction. Darryl and Bonnie Johnson were injured and their daughter was killed in the accident. The Johnsons brought a wrongful death and personal injury action against Janssen and the manufacturer of the sprayer. Their complaint alleged negligent driving and negligent maintenance of the sprayer by Janssen.
Janssen had an auto policy with Milwaukee Mutual Insurance and a farm policy with North Star Mutual Insurance. North Star sought a declaratory judgment that its policy did not cover the accident. Upon cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court determined that both policies apply and that North Star has a duty to defend Janssen.
Did the trial court err in holding that negligence in securing sprayer arms to a sprayer bolted to the bed of a pickup truck is an act independent of use, maintenance or operation of the vehicle?
Minnesota recognizes that an insured is entitled to concurrent insurance coverage under an auto policy and a home owner's or farm policy where two independent acts of negligence, one vehicle related and one not vehicle related, are involved. Waseca Mut. Ins. Co. v. Noska, 331 N.W.2d 917, 921 (Minn.1983).
Johnsons' complaint alleges two distinct negligence claims, i.e., that Janssen failed to operate his pickup truck at a safe and reasonable speed, and that he failed to properly secure the arms of the sprayer to the sprayer unit. In a well-written and well reasoned decision, the trial court found that the alleged negligence in securing the sprayer arms was an independent act, not related to the operation or use of the vehicle. Since the act was not vehicle related, the court found that Janssen's farm policy applies and North Star has a duty to defend. We agree.
North Star contends that under the motor vehicle exclusion of Janssen's policy, any negligence in securing the sprayer arms was, by definition, vehicle related. The policy provides that coverage does not apply:
(c) To bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of: * * *
(2) any motor vehicle owned or operated by * * * any insured; * * *
It defines "motor vehicle" as:
* * * a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer designed for travel on public roads (including any machinery or apparatus attached thereto) but does not include, except while being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Center Mut. Ins. Co.
...court held that the policy exclusion did not preclude Grinnell's duty to defend its insured. Id. [¶ 28] In North Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 352 N.W.2d 791 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), a farm sprayer was bolted to the bed of a pickup truck. While the truck was being driven for non-farm purposes,......
-
Newton v. Nicholas
...which it provided coverage). A Minnesota case contained a factual situation close to the present situation. In North Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 352 N.W.2d 791 (Minn.App.1984), Vernon Janssen had an automobile policy with Milwaukee Mutual Insurance and a farm liability policy with North ......
-
Helmbolt v. LeMars Mut. Ins. Co., Inc.
...policy must be subject to a reasonable interpretation and not one which amounts to an absurdity. E.g., North Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 352 N.W.2d 791 (Minn.App.1984); Olguin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 Wis.2d 160, 237 N.W.2d 694 (1976); 13 J.A. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Pr......
-
Houser v. Gilbert
...accident. Jorgensen by Jorgensen v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 360 N.W.2d 397 (Minn.Ct.App.1985); North Star Mutual Insurance Company v. Johnson, 352 N.W.2d 791 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); Waseca Mutual Insurance Company v. Noska, 331 N.W.2d 917 (Minn.1983). This concurrent primary coverage con......