Latterell v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.
801 N.W.2d 917
Minn.2011Background
- Boom worked as a subcontractor delivering and picking up books; employer paid $148 per day plus a gas surcharge.
- Boom was killed in a motor vehicle collision while driving Boom’s insured vehicle in Kerkhoven, Minnesota.
- Latterell, Boom’s stepfather, sought UIM benefits from Progressive (the vehicle’s insurer) after liability limits were reached in settling with the other driver.
- Progressive denied UIM benefits based on a business-use exclusion in Boom’s policy; AIG later denied UIM benefits to Latterell under a resident-relative exclusion applicable to Boom.
- District court granted summary judgment to Progressive and AIG; court of appeals affirmed; this Court reversed as to Progressive’s exclusion.
- The Court held Progressive’s business-use exclusion unenforceable under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act; remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Latterell against Progressive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the business-use exclusion unambiguously apply to Boom’s delivery activity? | Latterell argues the exclusion applies, given Boom’s compensation for delivery duties. | Progressive contends the exclusion clearly covers Boom’s business-related use. | Yes; the exclusion unambiguously excludes UIM here. |
| Is the business-use exclusion enforceable under the No-Fault Act? | The Act requires UIM as first-party coverage and invalidates exclusions that defeat statutory minimums. | The Act allows typical policy exclusions; Meister is distinguishable and does not control. | No; the exclusion is unenforceable against UIM under the No-Fault Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meister v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co., 479 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. 1992) (business-use exclusion invalidated for additional first-party benefits)
- Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Loren, 597 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. 1999) (invalidating UIM exclusion when occupying motorcycle owned by a resident relative)
- Lynch ex rel. Lynch v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 626 N.W.2d 182 (Minn. 2001) (addressing policy exclusions and first-party vs. third-party coverage dynamics)
- Lobeck v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 582 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 1998) (distinguishing first- and third-party aspects of No-Fault coverage)
- Kelly v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 666 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. 2003) (treatment of UIM as first-party benefits under No-Fault Act)
- Malmin v. Minn. Mut. Fire & Cas. Co., 552 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 1996) (invalidating exclusions denying UIM benefits)
- Roering v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 444 N.W.2d 829 (Minn. 1989) (invalidating UIM exclusions tied to occupancy by insured/relative)
- Becker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 611 N.W.2d 7 (Minn. 2000) (UIM coverage interplay with vehicle occupancy)
- Am. Commerce Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. Minn. Mut. Fire & Cas. Co., 551 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 1996) (ambiguous policy language and first-party coverage analysis)