Jama v. Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company, 0:23-cv-02291

Plaintiff Asli Jama was injured by a hit-and-run vehicle while crossing the street to return to her employer’s insured minivan.
The minivan was covered by an auto-insurance policy from Berkshire Hathaway, which included uninsured and underinsured motorist provisions; coverage extended to “insureds” defined by the policy.
The policy defined "insured" as anyone “occupying” the covered auto, with “occupying” meaning in, upon, getting in, on, out, or off.
Jam filed a declaratory judgment action seeking coverage after Berkshire Hathaway denied her claim.
At summary judgment, the central dispute was whether Jama was “occupying” the minivan at the time of the accident, based on conflicting evidence and her own inconsistent testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory or policy definitions apply	Minn. No-Fault statute’s language controls, not the policy’s terms	Policy’s definition of “insured” governs; statute does not expand	Policy definitions control; statute applies only to “insureds”
Was Jama “occupying” the minivan when struck?	She was near/trying to enter the minivan, thus “occupying” it	Evidence (witness, police, photos) shows she was in the street	Jama was not “occupying” vehicle under policy or law
Genuine dispute of material fact	Conflicting accounts mean jury should decide	Record evidence (witnesses, photos) contradicts her testimony	No genuine dispute; summary judgment for Berkshire Hathaway
Entitlement to uninsured motorist coverage	Injury should be covered as a consequence of vehicle use	She was not an “insured” under policy at time of injury	Coverage denied; Jama not an “insured” under the policy

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (Standard for granting summary judgment; judge does not weigh evidence/credibility)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (Court may reject "blatantly contradicted" version of facts at summary judgment)
Kelly v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 666 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. 2003) (Policy language controls unless it fails to provide statutory minimums)
Gieser v. Home Indem. Co., 484 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. App. 1992) (Policy definition of "insured" and "occupying" governs coverage)
Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. W. Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 552 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. 1996) (Rejected "geographic perimeter" theory for "occupying" a vehicle)
Short v. Midwest Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 602 N.W.2d 914 (Minn. App. 1999) (Plain meaning of "occupying" requires physical contact/act of entering)