Sandra Castillo as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jose Luis Estrada-Martinez v. American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin
889 N.W.2d 591
Minn. Ct. App.2017Background
- On Dec. 12, 2013, Jose Luis Estrada‑Martinez died of carbon monoxide poisoning while repairing a customer’s tire inside the cargo bay of his 2002 Chevrolet box truck; a gasoline generator in the cargo area leaked exhaust into the closed bay.
- Estrada‑Martinez operated a mobile auto/tire-repair business primarily out of that truck (tools, compressor, generator stored and used there); he also worked as an independent contractor making deliveries.
- He was insured under a family automobile no‑fault policy with American Standard; he had no separate business insurance for the mobile repair work.
- The insurer denied personal‑injury‑protection (PIP) benefits, invoking Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 3, which excludes losses arising in the course of a business of repairing or maintaining motor vehicles unless the conduct occurs off the business premises.
- District court granted summary judgment for the insurer, concluding (1) the injury occurred in the course of the business of repairing vehicles and (2) the truck's cargo bay qualified as the business premises, so the statutory exclusion applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Estrada‑Martinez’s death occurred “off the business premises” under Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 3, so PIP benefits are available | Castillo: “Business premises” requires a fixed location on real property; Estrada‑Martinez’s mobile truck is not business premises, so the off‑premises exception applies and no‑fault coverage should pay. | American Standard: The truck’s cargo bay was the primary location where he conducted his repair business; a business premises can include a mobile unit, so the exclusion bars PIP benefits. | Court: A business premises may include a mobile business location (the truck cargo bay); the exclusion applies and no‑fault benefits are unavailable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steinfeldt v. AMCO Ins. Co., 592 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. App. 1999) (standard of review for summary judgment and discussion of no‑fault exclusions)
- Nelson v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 651 N.W.2d 499 (Minn. 2002) (statutory interpretation of the No‑Fault Act reviewed de novo)
- McSherry v. Heimer, 156 N.W. 130 (Minn. 1916) (definition of “premises” as land and buildings in a search‑warrant context)
- State v. Palmer, 636 N.W.2d 810 (Minn. App. 2001) (precedent treating “place of business” as a fixed location, not mobile business)
- Midwest Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Karpe, 430 N.W.2d 856 (Minn. App. 1988) (no‑fault exclusion did not apply to off‑duty employee working on personal vehicle)
- Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Goebel, 504 N.W.2d 278 (Minn. App. 1993) (business‑premises exclusion applies to employees of the business, not customers)
- Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. Klug, 415 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. 1987) (three‑factor test for whether injury arises out of use or maintenance of a vehicle)