Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Villanueva, 37 F. Supp. 3d 1043

Defendants Jerome and Kelly Schmidt operate a Minnesota farm; Heartland is property insurer and Grinnell is liability insurer on the Farm-Guard policy.
In May 2012, at a farm party, Alyssa Zamarron drove an ATV with Madison Schmidt as a passenger; the ATV collided with a tree and Alyssa died.
The wrongful death action was brought against the Schmidts in state court; Grinnell defended without a reservation of rights.
Grinnell later reserved its right to deny coverage and filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court; the underlying wrongful death suit settled for $462,500, with Grinnell contributing $100,000 conditioned on this case.
The only remaining dispute is indemnification: whether the Schmidts must repay Grinnell’s $100,000 or Grinnell must contribute an additional $200,000.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the endorsement defeat coverage for Alyssa's death?	Grinnell: exclusion applies to bodily injury to an insured operating the select recreational vehicle with express permission.	Schmidt: endorsement provides coverage unless the exclusion clearly applies; Alyssa lacked express permission.	Yes, coverage exists; exclusion not proven applicable.
Was Alyssa operating with express permission under the endorsement?	Grinnell argues Madison’s express permission could transfer to Alyssa via the owner’s permission.	Schmidt argues there was no express permission by the Schmidts or their spouses for Alyssa to operate the ATV.	No express permission; Alyssa lacked express permission; exclusion does not defeat coverage.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Blount, 491 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2007) (interpretation of insurance policy governed by state law; ambiguity construed in insured's favor)
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co., 718 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. 2006) (unambiguous policy terms; narrowly construed against insurer)
Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 104 N.W.2d 19 (1960) (endorsement controls where it conflicts with body of policy)
Auto Club Ins. Ass'n v. States Sentry Ins., 683 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2012) (specific provisions govern over general provisions)
North Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Raincloud, 563 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (ATV usage context; permission concepts in auto policy)
Jones v. Fleischhacker, 325 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. 1982) (express permission examples in Minnesota cases)
Stewart v. Anderson, 246 N.W.2d 576 (Minn. 1976) (distinction between express and implied permission)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Ricks, 902 S.W.2d 323 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (express permission defined in automobile policy context)