Visser v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., A18-1204

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Writing for the Court: GILDEA, Chief Justice.
• Citation: 938 N.W.2d 830
• Parties: Amanda Grace VISSER, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 12 February 2020
• Docket Number: A18-1204

938 N.W.2d 830

Amanda Grace VISSER, Appellant,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

A18-1204

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: February 12, 2020

Matthew J. Barber, James S. Ballentine, Mark H. Gruesner, Schwebel Goetz & Sieben, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.

Emilio Giuliani, Kimberly C. Scriver, LaBore, Giuliani & Viltoft, Ltd., Hopkins, Minnesota, for respondent.

OPINION

GILDEA, Chief Justice.

The question presented in this case is whether a person injured in a car accident can recover additional primary underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under a policy that provides coverage for a vehicle that was not involved in the accident. Appellant Amanda Grace Visser was injured while she was driving a 2000 Pontiac Grand Prix, and she sought additional primary UIM benefits under an insurance policy that covered a separate vehicle, a Chevrolet. Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company insured both the Pontiac and the Chevrolet. The district court held that Visser is not entitled to primary UIM benefits under the Chevrolet policy, and the court of appeals affirmed. Because Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(5) (2018), requires an injured person to look first and exclusively to the policy covering the occupied vehicle for primary UIM benefits, and because the policies do not explicitly alter the statutory priority scheme, we affirm.

FACTS

On February 1, 2013, Visser was injured in a car accident with an underinsured motorist. That motorist was intoxicated, drove through a stop sign, and struck the Pontiac Grand Prix that Visser was driving. The motorist’s $50,000 insurance liability limit did not cover Visser’s claimed damages. Accordingly, she sought UIM benefits from her personal State Farm automobile insurance policy.

The parties agree that Visser qualifies as "an insured" under two State Farm insurance policies that Visser’s mother had purchased for her two vehicles: the Pontiac policy and the Chevrolet policy. The Pontiac policy specifically covers the Pontiac Grand Prix that Visser was driving at the time of the accident. The Chevrolet policy specifically covers a Chevrolet vehicle not involved in the accident.

The only other relevant difference between the two policies is the amount of UIM coverage. The Pontiac policy provides for UIM benefits with an upper limit of $100,000 per person. The Chevrolet policy provides for UIM benefits with an upper limit of $250,000 per person. Under

938 N.W.2d 832

both policies, State Farm agreed to "pay compensatory damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or driver of an underinsured motor vehicle."

Visser first sought primary UIM benefits under the Pontiac policy. State Farm paid Visser the Pontiac policy’s UIM benefits limit of $100,000. But Visser then brought another claim against State Farm, asserting that she is entitled to additional primary UIM benefits under the Chevrolet policy, even though the Chevrolet was not involved in the accident. Visser claimed that she suffered damages that exceeded the amounts she recovered from the at-fault motorist and State Farm under the Pontiac policy. State Farm denied that the Chevrolet policy applies to Visser’s claim.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. State Farm argued that Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(5), limits Visser’s primary UIM benefits to the limit specified in the policy covering the vehicle that Visser occupied at the time of the accident and that neither policy provides for additional primary UIM benefits. Visser disagreed, arguing that both policies provide primary UIM coverage for her injury and that she is entitled to additional primary UIM benefits up to the Chevrolet policy’s limit of $250,000.

The district court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment and denied Visser’s motion. The district court determined that the language in both policies "merely defines how benefits are apportioned if more than one policy applies." To decide whether more than one policy applied, the court turned to Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(5), and then held that the Chevrolet policy did not apply under that statute.

The court of appeals affirmed. Visser v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , No. A18-1204, 2019 WL 1757888 (Minn. App. Apr. 22, 2019). The court of appeals determined that the district court did not err when it relied, in part, upon Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(5), to determine that the Chevrolet policy does not apply to Visser’s claims. 2019 WL 1757888, at *4. The court of appeals therefore concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to State Farm. Id.

We granted Visser’s petition for review.

ANALYSIS

This case comes to us on appeal from summary judgment, and our review is de novo. See Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Dev. Grp., LLC , 790 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Minn. 2010). Neither party argues that there is an issue as to any material fact. Instead, the dispute here is whether the lower courts misapplied the law—specifically, Minnesota’s No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (No-Fault Act), Minn. Stat. §§ 65B.41 –.71 (2018), and the State Farm policies. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 776 N.W.2d 693, 698 (Minn. 2009). The "[i]nterpretation of an insurance policy, and whether a policy provides coverage in a particular situation, are [also] questions of law that we review de novo." Eng'g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. , 825 N.W.2d 695, 704 (Minn. 2013).

A.

Visser seeks UIM benefits, so we begin with the statute that requires those benefits— Minn. Stat. § 65B.49. The No-Fault Act requires all motor vehicle insurance policies issued in Minnesota to provide certain minimum limits of UIM coverage. Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(1)–(2). In general, "UIM coverage is triggered when a tortfeasor’s liability coverage is insufficient to fully compensate the injured

938 N.W.2d 833

person for the actual damages sustained in an accident." Latterell v. Progressive N. Ins. Co. , 801 N.W.2d 917, 922 (Minn. 2011) ; see also Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 17 (defining "underinsured motor vehicle"); id. , subd. 19 (defining "underinsured motorist coverage"). At a minimum, the UIM limits must be $25,000 for "one person in any accident" and $50,000 for "two or more persons in any accident." Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(1). The No-Fault Act also establishes "priorities among multiple possible...