Meyer v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Group
371 N.W.2d 535
Minn.
1985
Check Treatment

*1 judgment from may appeal of convic-

tiоn, raising issues, including sentenc- See, e.g., Herberg, 324 issues. State v. (Minn.1982)(appeal

N.W.2d 346 from issues).3 only

ment raised sentencing

Third, appeal time for direct has may petition

expired, postconviction for sentencing

relief on issues or other issues court, appeal

in the district then denial See, State, e.g.,

of the relief. Jackson (Minn.1983)(holding ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‍sentencing depar-

defendant attack a postconviction proceeding).

ture in a appeal appeal this ease is an judgment of The fact

from the conviction. Appeals

that the brief filed in the Court of only a sentencing

raises issue does not fact appeal

alter the that the is from the conviction. ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‍We conclude that 28.02, 4(3),

under Rule the Court of

Appeals authority grant has the exten

sion. granted,

Petition order reversed for further proceedings.

remanded MEYER, Respondent,

Patricia

ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE Harvey Meyer,

GROUP and

petitioners, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Minnesota. Gillin, Paul, Rice, Mary

Charles E. St. for appellants. Paul, re- Jasperson,

Richard L. St. spondent. defender, public subsequently in order tо made sometimes appeal, issues, to dismiss rights represented by nonsentencing only criminal defendant sometimes raise office, routinely appeal sеntencing files a notice of sometimes raise both issues, period appeal nonsentencing before the time raise and sometimes to judgment expirеs. sentencing Then a decision is issues.

536 act,

five date of the no-fault January Accordingly, interpret we will the version, statute as found in the 1978 which PETERSON, Justice. reads as follows: Underinsurеd motorist of- Meyer, injured Respondent, Patricia equal fered in an amount at least to the 26, 1976, May as a result of an accident on insured’s residual limits and also involving she was a one vehicle which may at lower limits the insured passenger and her husband the driver. select, whereby reparation obligor the by appellant The automobile was insured agrees pay damages to the insured is (Farm- Group Illinois Farmers legally entitled to recover on account of a ers). Respоndent received from Farmers motor vehicle but which are un- $50,000, limits of cover- compensated because damages the total insufficiently compensаt- age, but was still bodily injury exceed the residual liabil- injuries. brought this ac- ed for her She ity limit the owner the other ve- tion, claiming entitlement to underinsured reparation obligor hicle. The is subro- Minn.Stat. gated any pays upon to it amounts 65B.49, 6(e) (1974). subd. § payment assignment has an of the granted The trial Farmers’ motion any against ment if person the othеr denying summary judgment money pays. the extent of the it 6(e) concluding does not that subdivision 65B.49, 6(e) (1978) (em- Minn.Stat. subd. § provide require provide insurer to added).1 phasis an in- underinsured motоrist requires The statute at issue that under- sured who has compensate be offered to policy. The court benefits under damages uncompensated that are because 141, reversed, appeals, 353 NW2d based they bodily injury exceed “the residual lia- its of this court’s decision bility limit owner of the other ve- Holman v. All Nation Insurаnce 288 language, apparent From this it hicle.” We reverse the contemplates that the statute that a vehicle decision of the court of upоn which underinsured benefits are to be purposes For of review the paid is not to be the same vehicle that sets only, motion Farmers admits that liability ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‍coverаge. the limits of We decline it did not offer underinsured language to read this “other vehicle” out of Therefore, coverage is im- statute, interpretation urged by as the 6(e). posed by Although techni- subdivision respondent would have us do. See Norris cally governed by the case is the 1974 Union, Int’l Grain Co. Seafarers’ statute, version of the 91, 109-10, (1950) Minn. 46 N.W.2d 250-51, we held that 1977 (“Neither the of the laws nor their wisdom origi- merely amendments had clarified the adequacy accomplish a desired applicable nal statute and should be read as may taken into consideration courts occurring determining interpretation after the effec- to all accidents what the law vehicle, directly amendments do not affect other to the of the extent of case; in this the subdivi- at issue residual limits on the vehicle motor respon- actuаlly the time in effect at person legally of the entitled to recover or accident, clarifying without the amend- dent’s such limits smaller as select less the ments, following: mandated the paid by reparation obligor per- amount of the coverage whereby Underinsured motorist against whom son he is entitled to recovеr. subject to the terms and conditions of such obligor reparation subrogated His shall be obligor agrees reparation pay pays upon payment it amounts shall uncompensated damages its insureds for such assignment have an they legally are entitled to recover on ac- against the other to the extent of the count of a accident because the motor vehicle money pays. damages they legally total to re- entitled 65B.49, 6(e) (1974). Minn.Stat. § cover exceed the residual limit of have; give we must effect to them exclude a or regularly owned are, they regardless personal our furnished or available to the named in- opinion regarding adequacy”); Minn. surer properly prevents this conversion 645.16 Stat. and 645.17 §§ of first-party coverage. Not interpretation is this of subdivi- 6(e) language, mandated but it is its Id. See also Breaux v. Government Em *3 position

consistent with the Co., of ployment (La. Ins. 369 So.2d 1335 general 1979); underinsurance in the scheme of Millers Casualty Ins. Co. v. Briggs, coverage. Liability insurance insurance is 100 Wash.2d 665 P.2d 891 рurchased an of a vehicle ours, In reaching contrary a conclusion protect passengers in vehicle from the that appeals of relied Holman negligent driving of the owner or another Co., All Nation driving the vehicle. Underinsured cover- (Minn.1980), indistinguishable however, age, protect against is intended this case tо establish that underinsured risk, type a the risk that a different coverage exists. Were that holding negligent driver of vehicle will another Holman, the conclusion of the сourt of adequate purchase failed to have correct, appeals would be since there we insurance; is, that it is intended “to allowed underinsurеd benefits to be collect- the named insured and other additional in- injuries resulting ed from a one-car an suffering inadequately sureds from policy accident undеr the same from which compensated by an injury caused liability coverage imposed. appar- was It is inadequately with insured automobile.” from a ent careful Myers State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. however, coverage that pre- whether was (Minn.1983). An cluded the “other vehicle” wishing provide greater protec- simply the statute not an issue in was negligence tion his own for himself case. At issue was a mandatory ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‍whether purchase passengers and his addi- should offer underinsured had been cоverage; tional insurance allow- coverages, made and whether the as well coverage in ing underinsured the instant stacked; no-fault be would, essence, allowing in an indi- apparent, in reasons that are not coverage by pur- vidual increase parties raised and briefs never thus chasing expensive less underinsured cover- never drew our attention what is now age. expressed We same concern in this Accordingly the central issue in case. this upheld policy which we a exclu- Myers, waived, the issue was and Holman in no of underinsured where way precedent particu- constitutes on this or fur- fault was “owned issue. lar regular for the nished use [the owner] any family member”: We hold that underin- therefore Underinsured imposed by sured is not subdivi and, sense, first-party coverage in that 6(e) in accident under the one-vehicle follows the not the policy insuring same the same vehicle from Here, however, the decedent vehicle. payable. The passengеr’s heirs have court properly trial awarded coverage of the under the insur- on that is favor of Farmers car. To now collect er [owner’s] sue. insurer’s

furthеr under- Reversed. insured motorist would be to the underinsured motorist cover- convert JJ., YETKA and dissent. insurance, age third-party treating YETKA, essentially the same as liabili- would affirm In ty сoverage. The definition defin- the court my opinion, they quite accurately an “underinsured motor vehicle” to followed of this court as set out in precedent Compa v. All Nation Insurance Holman I find

ny, 288 N.W.2d indistinguishable. the facts

that case and only way that the cases differ ‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‍is that case was decided 1977. It

the Holman that

certainly persuasive is not to me that merely because Hol

issue was not raised specifically state that the case

man did The deci

applied single to a car accident. implicit that issue the deci

sion on

sion itself.

Accordingly, if we feel Holman is law, longer good

no we should be intellec- *4 case,

tually enough to overrule that honest attempt distinguish it. agree Yetka. with the dissent of Justice BEUKHOF,

David

Petitioner, Appellant,

STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE COMPANY,

INSURANCE

Respondent.

Supreme of Minnesota. Court Grostephan, Minneapolis,

Bruce P. appellant. Gregory Stephens, Minneapolis,
R. Snyder, Minneapolis, Michael C. amicus curiae.