Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
284 N.W.2d 829
Minn.
1979
Check Treatment

*1 including preference, affectional without

showing that the criteria is a bona fide

occupational qualification.12 We do not arguments

find convincing. amicus’ to be employment relationship

An primarily specific

based criteria which have an

objective big basis while the brother rela-

tionship Further, is necessarily subjective. potential big

a brother volunteers to be a

big brother free any coercion. The eco- potential employee

nomic need of a to find job provide

a food and shelter is not analogy. in amicus’ this,

In a situation such as we will not employment standard situ- expression

ation legisla- without a clear

tive intent.

Affirmed.

ROGOSHESKE, J., part took no

consideration or decision of this case.

George HIME, Respondent, D.

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY

COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 48078.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. public purpose compliance “b. For the with the most accommodation situations in- rule, any regulation is, quiry gas Public Contracts Act or does not occur. That station requir- laws of the ing inquire United States or this state attendant will not as to one’s affection- race, color, creed, pertaining information preference serving ap- al before him. Amicus sex, religion, ancestry, origin, national affec- parently prohibited why inquiry believes that is was not preference, disability, age, status, tional marital public in the area of accommoda- regard public or status with assistance is Thus, occur, inquiry tions. where does amicus required by political States, state, the United or a subjects it feels protected should be limited not to include agency subdivision or of the United Rights Minneapolis under the Civil States or this state.” Ordinance. that, specifically Big The fact that the for- Amicus also contends if ordinance even Brothers, however, inquiry suggests, Inc. is considered to be bids some areas under the public section, prohibition inquiry accommodation that public is not forbidden in the area of against any inquiry required. should still be accommodations. by noting Amicus reaches this conclusion that

831 *2 5,1966, appellant December On issued an respondent, automobile insurance policy recognized a Florida resident. The prin- that the would be insured automobile cipally garaged It also in Florida. con- following intra-family tained the exclusion, enforceability of which is the *3 subject litigation: of this agrees] pay Farm To on “[State behalf of the insured all sums which the legally obligated insured shall become to (A) pay damages bodily as because of * * injury by persons other *. A, coverage bodily “[Exclusions] injury any to the insured or to member of residing the family of the insured * * same household as the insured *.” annually. Respon- The was renewed dent his wife times in the and resided at all same Florida household. August 3,1972, by driven

On automobiles respondent and a Minnesota resident were involved in a accident in Minnesota. two-car wife, Respondent’s respon- passenger car, injured seriously dent’s and com- Geer, Markham, Meagher, Anderson, Ad- against menced suit both drivers in Minne- amson, Brennan, Flaskamp & J. Richard Gladys sota court. Hime was awarded Adamson, II, Minneapolis, Bland and O. C. $38,000, damages in the amount of which appellant. for apportioned according negligence were Anderson, Perl, DeParcq, Hunegs & Rud- $22,800 percent against or amount of 60 Lawson, quist, Stephen Eckman, F. Dean S. respondent, percent against and 40 the Min- Ingebritson, Minneapolis, Russell A. Appellant nesota driver. refused to defend Davies, Law, Jack Professor of William indemnify respondent because of the in- Law, Paul, College Mitchell for St. re- tra-family paid exclusion but spondent. $4,424.25 Gladys Hime in no-fault benefits

pursuant applicable Florida law. Respondent commenced this indemnifica- tion against appellant action on June 1976, prevailing in for sum- cross-motions WAHL, Justice. mary judgment trial before the court. Casualty Defendant Fire State Farm & Company appeals from the order for appeal sum- The the trial issue on is whether mary judgment judgment of the Hen- applying court erred in Minnesota law to Court, nepin County District which set aside render ineffective the Florida the family exclusion clause and ordered contract clause that excluded automobile insured, indemnify State Farm to its liability coverage intra-family for claims. Hime, George judgment against for a him jurisdiction The of the Minnesota damages arising for suffered his wife conceded, being from an automobile accident in Minnesota. courts over this matter We affirm. limit our review to the conflict of laws 832 Moreover, liability insurance the automobile case.1 To resolve presented by

question of a occurrence conflict, initially contemplates whether we consider contract overlap- hybrid, are sufficient is a with Minnesota The transaction the contacts tort. See, con- of Minnesota law application to make and contract. ping the laws of tort Sullam, contacts process. with due Such Co. v. sistent 76 Misc.2d Allstate Insurance slight and casual. must not be too (1973). 349 N.Y.S.2d Office, Ltd., Ins. Clay v. Sun of Flori The with the State L.Ed.2d 229 con itself. The from the contract da arise case arise both contacts in this to a Florida tract was issued Florida The and from contract of insurance from the garaged in principally a vehicle tort, per initiates the insurer’s which Presumably, premiums were Florida. We do not re formance of the contract. with the paid in Florida. The contacts arising review to the contacts strict our however, Minnesota, signifi are State of To do so would be to from the contract. is licensed to do busi appellant The cant. *4 lia ignore unique the nature of automobile subject to suit in and ness in Minnesota Supreme has bility insurance. As the Court here and occurred our courts. The accident recognized: in a Minneso involved a Minnesota * * * companies do not “Insurance who was in ta vehicle. The non-resident confine their contractual activities and treated in this jured hospitalized was and obligations within state boundaries. against both drivers was com state. Suit promised They sell to customers who are here, the case was tried in the menced and protection away' in far from the States courts of this state. We find these Clay place contract is made.” where the ensure that with Minnesota sufficient to Office, Ltd., 207, 221, v. Ins. 363 Sun U.S. in this case application of Minnesota law 1222, 1230, (1960) 80 4 L.Ed.2d 1170 S.Ct. process. would not offend due Clay v. (Black, J., dissenting), in quoted Office, Ltd., 179, 182, process Ins. Having concluded that due Sun 377 U.S. 84 1197, 1199, application of Min by 12 L.Ed.2d 229.2 would not be violated Supreme ute. The Court reversed the dismiss 1. the Minnesota and Flori- The choice between ground da laws is case. The Florida courts have validity of this determinative of the outcome that Louisiana had al of the suit on the recognized the “legitimate safeguarding rights in a of interest liability provisions in- there,” 73, of of automobile persons injured 348 U.S. 75 S.Ct. coverage policies surance that exclude from opinion recognized as 170. The the interstate family members of the insured’s or household. pects of the case before it: Co., See, g., e. Reid Allstate Insurance 344 affecting locally, noth- “Some contacts made affirmed, (D.C.A.Fla.1977), So.2d 877 Reid v. affairs, ing may justify but local well a denial to Co., Casualty 1172 State Farm Fire & (Fla.1977). 352 So.2d power other states of But, to alter those contracts. contrary, To the Minnesota law has illustrates, part as this case a vast of the prohibited family exclusions in household business affairs of this Nation does not policies automobile since simple Although in- local such situations. See, 65B.23, repealed by Minn.St. Laws Massachusetts, surance contract was issued 1974,c. 408 33. Under the current Minnesota § * * * damages protect against it was to act, family no-fault automobile insurance and might personal injuries that be suf- account of household members ry 65B.43, are included the statuto- * ** anywhere in the United States See, fered of definition “insureds.” Minn.St. * * consequence modem *. As a subd. 5. widespread practice conducting of business ac- Supreme decision in We note also Court’s States, throughout the entire United tivities Liability Employers Watson v. Assurance cases held that this Court has a series of 166, Corp., 348 74 75 S.Ct. 99 L.Ed. may local more states than one seize hold of (1954). Watson involved a suit on an insur- part of multistate transac- activities which are policy ance ance and ing ny. issued a Massachusetts insur- may regulate protect interests of tions and company delivered in Massachusetts and * * people own its Illinois, prohibit- which contained a clause Thus, prohibiting despite clause the contract against compa- direct actions the insurance actions, petitioner’s direct action was direct permitted. plaintiff injured by product The of the insured in Louisiana and sued the insurance company under Louisiana’s direct action stat-

833 law, nesota As we said in Myers our choice of law rules v. Government Em- Saari, set forth in Milkovich v. 295 Minn. Co., 359, 365, ployees Insurance 302 Minn. (1973) 408 N.W.2d determine (1974), predictability N.W.2d of See, governs which law in this case.3 applies primarily results to consensual Freightways Schwartz v. Consolidated parties transactions where the desire ad- Corp. Del., 300 Minn. 221 N.W.2d govern vance will notice of which state law Milkovich, Under disputes. in future not such a This is case. considerations as well as contacts must be (2) Maintenance of Interstate Order. Schwartz, analyzed. 295 Minn. 155 at 221 N.W.2d at 669. Five choice-influencing concept This involves considera (1) considerations are predictabili- involved: sufficiency tion of the of contacts between result; ty (2) maintenance of interstate the forum state and the transaction. order; and simplification international Hague, supra. that we have The contacts task; judicial advancement of the satisfy process the due found sufficient interest; governmental forum’s (5) ap- support application also of Minnesota law plication of the better rule law. choice-influencing under this consideration. facts, respondent light In of these cannot be case, Unlike the typical tort where regarded simply forum-shopping as with lit only govern advancement of the forum’s genuine tle contact with the state. mental interest application of the bet (see, ter rule g., of law are relevant e. (3) Simplification of the Judicial Task. Schwartz), case, with traits of both Because the Minnesota and Florida laws contract, torts and requires consideration of *5 clause, on the enforceability of the contract factors, see, all five Hague v. Allstate In appeal, equally which is central to this are (Minn.1978), surance April Co. filed clear, though other, contrary to each (1)Predictability of Results. significant is in this consideration not case. applied practi- Either law could be without Hague, supra, As we observed in the cal unplanned difficulty. of nature automobile accidents lessens the importance of predictability of Forum’s Advancement of the Govern- results in automobile insurance cases. mental Interest. Nevertheless, we note that the insured’s here, Our concern as in Milkovich protection boundaries, geographical has no Saari, supra, v. is that Minnesota courts not at us, least not under the policy before upon be called to determine issues under it is foreseeable that the insured may meet rules, which, accepted they may however be his misfortune of out of the state issuance. states, in other are inconsistent with our It was unpredictable neither unusual nor concept equity. own of fairness and To case, that the insured in this a former Min apply Florida law in this case would be resident, nesota visit returned to his former interest, adverse to that for the courts and home and that his vehicle was involved in legislature of this state have condemned an accident there. As was in Clay the case Office, immunity household clauses. Ltd., v. Minn.St. supra, Sun Ins. the contract 65B.23, repealed by Laws c. 408 33. provide here in issue did § not that the law of See, also, Frana, issuing govern the Beaudette v. 285 Minn. state would suits filed in 366, 173 (1969), other where we abro N.W.2d 416 states. The transaction was not planned results, gated predictable interspousal immunity actions for have and the justified Providing injured in expecting recovery is not now tort. to those .insurer govern absolutely light legiti Florida law to is a of and treated within our borders unique recognized by extra-territorial effect and na mate state interest that was ture of the automobile Supreme insurance contract. v. Employers Court in Watson go questions 3. The efforts of the amicus curiae do not to the resolution of conflicts we are concisely persuaded preferable unnoticed. While the amicus not that the is alternative articulately approach analysis. sets forth an alternative to the Milkovich here, visiting but the other driver was a Corp., 348 Liability Assurance Minnesota; the accident oc- (1954). By applying 99 L.Ed. Minnesota; injured party and the controversy, respon curred Florida law to $22,000 None of these wife, holding judg was treated in Minnesota. dent’s while husband, Hague case against her would in effect ment recovery. be denied This result offends our however. concern

idea of fairness and defies our for to this state.

the welfare of visitors Law. Better Rule of foregoing

Because the consider weigh applying

ations in favor of Minnesota

law, dwell on this fifth we need not factor. reasoning in simply

We note our Beaudette Frana, recognized supra. v. There that Application In the Matter of Ed- tangible gain providing the social finan Hydraulics, ward BARTELL and Barko protection cial for those whom an insured Incorporated, for a Permit to Place Fill wrongdoer ordinarily has the most natural Superior, Appellants, in the Bed of Lake protect transcends the in motive more tangible impairing integri loss of social Minnesota, Respondent. STATE of ty family relationship. Similarly, gain argua this same social transcends the No. 49148. impairing

ble social loss of con Supreme Court of Minnesota. provisions provide tract that for familial sanctity exclusions. The of such a contrac Oct. relationship already tual diminished negotiation, the relative absence of free

perhaps approaching the nature a con See, Ehrenzweig,

tract of adhesion. 53 Co- applica

lum.L.Rev. Our

tion of the Milkovich considerations leads us gov

to conclude that Minnesota law should

ern controversy. resolution of this

Affirmed.

OTIS, (concurring specially). Justice

I have no difficulty distinguishing this

case from Hague v. Allstate (Minn.1978), April

filed where Minnesota as the

forum state literally had no contacts with

any of parties which were related to

the accident when it occurred. For the

reason dissent, set forth in the my opin-

ion that applied decision the better rule of

law unconstitutionally.

Here, hand, on the other the contacts of parties with the State of Minnesota are every

substantial and there is reason to agree what we all is the Min- better only

nesota rule. Not did the insured have

ties with this state as a former resident