Bradley Larson v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins.
739 F.3d 1143
8th Cir.2014Background
- Larson sues Nationwide for coverage under an employer’s UIM policy, arguing timeliness of the suit.
- Accident occurred May 9, 2007; Larson’s underlying Minnesota state suit against Thompson and Gudal began May 5–June 16, 2009, with settlement in 2012.
- Policy timeliness provision: any action must be brought within two years of the accident, with an exception if the insured filed a bodily-injury action against the uninsured/underinsured vehicle owner in a court within two years.
- The exception requires filing “in a court of competent jurisdiction” and that such filing not be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
- District court granted summary judgment for Nationwide, concluding Larson’s Nationwide action was untimely and the exception did not apply; on appeal, the issue is proper interpretation of “filed.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What does 'filed' mean in the policy's timeliness exception? | Larson argues 'filed' means commenced, evidenced by service of process within two years. | Nationwide argues 'filed' means filed in court within two years, i.e., a court filing, not mere service. | 'Filed' means filing in a court; the exception requires court filing within two years. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eng’g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co., 825 N.W.2d 695 (Minn. 2013) (policy terms interpreted in context; ambiguity resolved against insurer)
- Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wolters, 517 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 1994) (read policy as a whole; ambiguity only if multiple meanings in context)
- Bennett v. City of Minneapolis, 445 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) (distinguishes 'filing a separate action' language; not persuasive here)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Second Chance Invs., LLC, 827 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 2013) (use of consistent meaning when same language appears in related text)