Toni Brill v. Mid-Century Insurance Company, 965 F.3d 656

Mid‑Century issued an auto policy (Mar 2015–Mar 2016) to Toni and Richard Brill in Wisconsin; the policy included $250,000 per‑person UIM coverage computed by a "limits‑less‑paid" clause.
Richard moved to Duluth, Minnesota in mid‑2015; while bicycling in Minnesota he was killed in Sept. 2015 by an underinsured driver.
The tortfeasor’s insurer paid $103,000 toward >$350,000 in damages; Toni sought the UIM difference from Mid‑Century.
Toni argued Minnesota law requires the UIM add‑on method (allowing recovery of the $250,000 limit in addition to the tort recovery); Mid‑Century relied on the policy’s limits‑less‑paid wording and Wisconsin law permitting that method.
The district court granted summary judgment to Mid‑Century, awarding $147,000 (the $250,000 limit less the $103,000 recovery); the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Minnesota's add‑on UIM calculation applies to an out‑of‑state policy when the insured later resides in MN	Brill: Mid‑Century, licensed in MN, must apply MN add‑on method because Richard resided in MN at the time of the accident	Mid‑Century: Policy was issued in Wisconsin to Wisconsin residents and not renewed in MN; Wisconsin law allows limits‑less‑paid and the contract controls	Affirmed for Mid‑Century: MN add‑on not required unless the policy was renewed, delivered, issued for delivery, or executed in MN; the policy's limits‑less‑paid clause governs
Whether to certify the state‑law question to the Minnesota Supreme Court	Brill: Court should certify the unsettled state‑law question	Mid‑Century: No certification; issue is controlled by existing Minnesota law and precedent	Denied: Court found the issue not so close or unsettled to warrant certification

Cantu v. Atlanta Cas. Cos., 535 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. 1995) (Minn. Sup. Ct. held statutory uninsured/UIM requirements apply only when policy is renewed/delivered/issued/executed in Minnesota)
Schossow v. First Nat’l Ins. Co. of Am., 730 N.W.2d 556 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) (Court of Appeals applied MN add‑on to an out‑of‑state policy issued to a Minnesota resident and distinguished Cantu)
Petty v. Allstate Ins. Co., 290 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. 1980) (interpreting §65B.50 to look to subdivision 2 for required "security" for nonresident policyholders)
Ziegelmann v. Nat’l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Cos., 686 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (section 65B.50 does not require UIM coverage for nonresident insureds)
Aguilar v. Tex. Farmers Ins. Co., 504 N.W.2d 791 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (UIM coverage beyond statutory minima is a matter of contract for out‑of‑state policies)
Hedin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 351 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (supports reading subdivisions of §65B.50 together to limit required coverages for nonresidents)