Great West Casualty Company v. Ruben Decker, 957 F.3d 910

Ruben Decker, a truck driver, was injured when two 1,800‑lb hay bales fell on him while he stood on the ground and strapped bales to his truck; he was treated for serious injuries.
The truck owner’s insurer, Great West, denied no‑fault medical benefits because the policy limited loading/unloading coverage to persons "occupying, entering into or alighting from" the vehicle; Decker was not occupying the truck.
Great West also refused to defend or indemnify Michael Selle (the farmer who loaded the hay) under the policy’s permissive‑user coverage because a "moving property exclusion" excluded permissive users "while moving property to or from" the truck.
Selle and Decker executed a Miller‑Shugart settlement in which Selle conceded liability and assigned any rights against Great West to Decker; Decker then sued Great West for coverage.
The district court granted summary judgment for Great West, holding the no‑fault loading/unloading limitation and the moving‑property exclusion were valid under Minnesota law; Decker appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, applying Minnesota statutory and case law to conclude the policy terms were enforceable and Great West owed neither no‑fault benefits nor defense/indemnity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of no‑fault loading/unloading limitation	Decker: policy term limiting loading/unloading benefits unless person was occupying is invalid; insurer must pay no‑fault benefits	Great West: statute (§65B.43) permits denial unless person is occupying/entering/alighting; policy mirrors statute and is valid	Court: Policy provision mirrors Minn. Stat. §65B.43 and is enforceable; Decker was not occupying, so no no‑fault benefits
Validity of "moving property" exclusion to permissive‑user liability coverage	Decker: No‑Fault Act requires omnibus coverage for permissive users; exclusion void as inconsistent with that obligation	Great West: No‑Fault Act defines "insured" narrowly; courts allow limited third‑party exclusions; moving‑property exclusion is permissible	Court: Exclusion valid under Minnesota law; permissive user Selle fell outside coverage for liabilities arising from moving property to/from truck; no duty to defend/indemnify
Motion to certify question to Minnesota Supreme Court	Decker: sought certification of state‑law questions after adverse judgment	Great West: opposed; procedural default	Court: Denied certification as untimely/discretionary; parties should have sought certification earlier

Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v. Widness, 635 N.W.2d 516 (Minn. 2001) (residual liability follows the vehicle; liability coverage must attach when insured vehicle is at fault)
Lobeck v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 582 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 1998) (No‑Fault Act does not prohibit insurers from including some restrictions on third‑party liability coverage)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lennartson, 872 N.W.2d 524 (Minn. 2015) (Minnesota approach to statutory interpretation; effectuate Legislature’s intent)
Miller v. Shugart, 316 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1982) (framework for settlement by tortfeasor who assigns coverage claims to injured party)
Hertz Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 573 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1998) (discusses omnibus coverage for permissive drivers under No‑Fault Act)
Ill. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Eull, 594 N.W.2d 559 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (upholding a business‑use exclusion limiting third‑party liability coverage)
Waldbillig v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 321 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. 1982) ("use" of vehicle has broader meaning than operation)