State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Matter of

• Citation: 392 N.W.2d 558
• Decision Date: 19 August 1986
• Docket Number: No. C3-86-345,C3-86-345
• Parties: In the Matter of STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and Allstate Insurance Company.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Page 558

392 N.W.2d 558

In the Matter of STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

COMPANY and Allstate Insurance Company.

No. C3-86-345.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Aug. 19, 1986.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the final decision of the Commissioner of Commerce that he is without jurisdiction to decide whether, under the 1985 amendments to the No-Fault Act, insurers are prohibited from offering, or are required to offer, insureds the opportunity to "stack" uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages.

2. The Commissioner of Commerce has jurisdiction, in a Minn.Stat. § 70A.06, subd. 2 proceeding, to determine which of two irreconcilable statutes governs the policy filing requirements of automobile insurers in Minnesota.

3. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not require that this case be remanded to the Commissioner of Commerce where to do so would clearly be futile and would serve only to delay the ultimate resolution of the case in the appellate courts.

4. The effective statute governing the filing requirements of insurers with regard to the stacking of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages is 1985 Minn.Laws 1st Spec.Sess. ch. 10, § 68 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a (1986)).

5. Minnesota Statutes section 65B.49, subd. 4 (1986), as amended, requires insurers to provide the mandatory uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage as a single coverage and not as separate coverages.

6. Statements made by individual legislators in committee or debate, during a session, are admissible to ascertain legislative intent.

Post-session testimony of legislators is not admissible to ascertain legislative intent.

James P. Loken, Joseph H. Otterstetter, Faegre & Benson, Minneapolis, for Relator State Farm.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Gregory P. Huwe, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent Dept. of Commerce.

Joe A. Walters, Lawrence A.G. Moloney, Mark J. Ayotte, O'Connor & Hannan, Minneapolis, for Relators Allstate and American Family Mut. Ins. Co.

William R. Sieben, Peter H. Berge, Schwebel, Goetz, Sieben & Hanson, P.A., Minneapolis, for respondent-intervenor MN Trial Lawyers Ass'n Heard, considered, and decided by PARKER, P.J., and WOZNIAK and SEDGWICK, JJ.

OPINION

WOZNIAK, Judge.

During the 1985 Regular Session and the 1985 First Special Session of the Minnesota Legislature, four amendments to the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn.Stat. ch. 65B, were enacted. One of these amendments directly contradicted the other three on the issue of whether "stacking" of underinsured and uninsured motorist coverages was permissible. Another provision is worded identically in all four amendments, but the parties to this appeal disagree on its interpretation, specifically, whether it allows insurers to combine underinsured and uninsured motorist insurance into a single coverage.

Petitioners State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, and eight intervenor insurance companies appeal by writ of certiorari from a final decision of the Commissioner of Commerce in a contested case administrative hearing. The commissioner, rejecting the recommendation of the administrative law judge, concluded that he lacked jurisdiction to decide whether "stacking" of uninsured and underinsured coverage is prohibited by statute or whether insurers are required to offer mandatory stacking, and that uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage must be offered as separate coverages. We reverse, and order the commissioner to approve petitioners' policy forms as submitted.

FACTS

1. The stacking issue: The 1985 Minnesota Legislature enacted two amendments to the No-Fault Act in the regular session and two in the special session. The first, chapter 168 (the Seaberg-Petty bill), made underinsured motorist coverage mandatory and prohibited the "stacking" of uninsured and underinsured coverages. See 1985 Minn.Laws. ch. 168, § 11, Minn.Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 4(1) & (6). The second, chapter 309, added technical amendments, which are not at issue here, to chapter 168. See 1985 Minn.Laws. ch. 309.

Because several major tax and appropriations bills were not passed during the 1985 regular session, a special session became necessary. Following the close of the regular session, the appropriations bill conference committees continued to meet in order to reach agreement on these major bills before the start of the special session. During the special session, proponents of stacking succeeded in adding a non-germane amendment to the House State Departments appropriations bill, which was then in conference committee. This amendment, special session chapter 13, required insurers to offer insureds an election to stack uninsured and underinsured coverage. See 1985 Minn.Laws 1st Spec.Sess. ch. 13. The amendment was added without consulting the authors of chapters 168 and 309. Under the special procedures governing the special session, conference committee reports were introduced as new bills in the special session, and no amendments were allowed on the House or Senate floor. Thus, opponents of stacking would have no opportunity to eliminate the mandatory offer provision by floor amendment. They had either to accept or reject the entire State Departments appropriations bill.

To overcome these procedural obstacles, opponents of stacking sought to restore the anti-stacking provisions enacted in the regular session through an amendment to the Semi-States appropriations bill then under consideration. This amendment, special session chapter 10, contained three provisions. First, Minn.Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 4 was rewritten as Minn.Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a, using the identical anti-stacking language of chapter 168. See 1985 Minn.Laws. 1st Spec.Sess. ch. 10, § 68, Minn.Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a. Second, Minn.Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 4, the statute amended by the State Departments bill, was repealed. Id. § 123, subd. 5. Third, because the order of passage of appropriations bills in a special session is unpredictable, the amendment contained a "repealer" provision, which stated:

Any amendment to Minnesota Statutes, section 65B.49, subdivision 4, enacted at the same special session that enacts this subdivision, is void.

Id.

When Representative Seaberg, the author of chapter 168, submitted this amendment to the Semi-States conference committee, of which he was a member, the House conferees were supportive. However, Representative Seaberg learned that a majority of the Senate conferees would not support the amendment unless it was first endorsed by the full Senate DFL Caucus.

The bill was presented to the Senate DFL Caucus on the morning of the first day of the special session. Proponents and opponents of stacking argued their positions. Senator Petty, the chief Senate author of no-fault reform, and the caucus chairman both explained that the effect of the amendment would be to restore the anti-stacking provision enacted in the regular session and to nullify the conflicting mandatory offer provision in the State Departments bill. The caucus voted to support Representative Seaberg's amendment to the Semi-States bill. The amendment was also fully explained to the House IR Caucus.

The two appropriations bills were enacted into law without further amendment to their stacking provisions. The Semi-States bill, S.F. 24, passed the House and the Senate on June 20, 1985. The State Departments bill, H.F. 16, passed the House on June 20 and the Senate on June 21. Both bills were enrolled by the Revisor of Statutes and signed by the legislative leaders on June 21. Both bills were sent to the Governor on June 24.

According to a memorandum from Ed Hunter of the State Planning Agency to Tom Triplett of the Governor's staff, the Department of Commerce preferred the pro-stacking provision in the State Departments bill. The Department of Commerce therefore urged that this bill be signed by the Governor after the Semi-States bill. The Governor's staff instead recommended that the Governor sign the bills in their "natural" order of passage so that "the Governor can thus avoid supporting one position or the other."

The two appropriations bills were signed by the Governor and filed by the Secretary of State on June 27, 1985. The Governor's Deputy Chief of Staff testified at the contested case hearing that the Governor signed the Semi-States bill "shortly" before he signed the State Departments bill.

The two signed bills were then taken to the Secretary of State's office, with a recommendation from the State Planning Agency that the State Departments bill receive a higher chapter number than the Semi-States bill. The Secretary of State assigned the Semi-States bill chapter number 10, and the State Departments bill chapter 13.

2. The single coverage issue: With regard to the issue whether uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance should be a single coverage or separate coverages, there is no question which statutory language governs. All four bills at issue here contain the identical language on this issue; the only question is the proper interpretation of that language.

3. The contested case hearing: In July of 1985, following the passage of both bills, State Farm filed its policy forms regarding uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage with the Department of Commerce, Insurance Division, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 70A.06, subd. 2 (1984). This filing included the newly mandated underinsured motorist coverage, but combined it with uninsured motorist coverage into a single coverage. It also provided no option for stacking.

The department rejected State Farm's filing because it did not provide separate underinsured and uninsured coverages and because it did not offer insureds the option to "stack" these coverages. State Farm thereupon filed a request for hearing pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 70A.22, subd. 1 (1984).

The same issues arose regarding Allstate, which...