*1 (Minn. 1993); Pierce, July see Pierce v. (Minn.App.) (three-year applies by analogy

statute of limitations contrary where rule inconsistent with treatment fathers presumed purpose promoting legit- would undermine (Minn. imacy), pet. rev. denied Nov. separately I write because do not competing presumptions paternity. find (1) days The record demonstrates four af- birth, Lyke ter C.M.G.’s and the mother (2) of Parentage, executed a Declaration properly declaration filed with the De- (3) Statistics, partment Lyke of Vital Lyke mother all that announced to is the biological expenses father of C.M.G. and as- paid by

sociated with birth C.M.G.’s (4) Lyke’s insurance, years, the last six Lyke stayed C.M.G. has at least three (5) days Lyke “daddy,” each week and called Lyke per the mother month as $200 support April child since no one challenged parentage the declaration of until this lawsuit. light Under these facts and in 257.57, 2(2), § subd. Minn.Stat. the three- year statute of limitations bars this lawsuit to

nullify Lyke’s relationship existence of

C.M.G.

REINSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF

MINNESOTA, Respondent, JOHANNESSEN,

Robert al., Respondents, et Decker, Appellant. Randall D. No. C1-93-1965. Appeals Court of of Minnesota. May *2 Wallace, Rapids, B. Park for Robert

James Johannessen, al. et Seeger, Krekelberg, Nathan L. Charles A. Nitz, Williams, Seeg- Krekelberg & Sorkness Decker, Falls, er, Fergus for Randall D. KLAPHAKE, and decided Considered P.J., DAVIES, JJ. SHORT

OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge. challenges Appellant Randall D. Decker respondent the trial court’s conclusion that coverage in a declara- insurer is not liable for affirm. tory judgment action. We

FACTS operate a

Robert and Bonnie Johannessen farm, dairy milking herd of 600-acre the Johannessens 85 to 90 cows. D. Decker to employed appellant Randall fields, crops, the live- plow plant tend stock, perform minor maintenance machinery. injured August Decker was On had been farm. Decker Johannessens’ and anoth- working with Robert Johannessen self-propelled swather. er farm laborer just started a had mounted and The three a drive engine on the swather when new engine’s crankshaft pulley from the broke Decker, injuring him. In the and struck had preceding year, the Johannessens wages of one other farm laborer Decker and $2,000. for dam- Decker sued the Johannessens injuries. bodily The Johannes- ages for his defense to their sens tendered insurer, Association respondent Reinsurance (“RAM”). brought this RAM of Minnesota against Decker declaratory judgment action for a determination and the Johannessens liability policy the Johannessens’ bodily in- coverage for Decker’s provides jury claim. trial, grounds three submitted

At made coverage. The trial court Bransky, Hal- Reyelts, Aaron R. L. Steven poli- findings concluded that Reyelts Bate- written Bye Downs & verson Watters injuries. did not cover Ltd., Duluth, cy unambiguously man, Ass’n of for Reinsurance appeals. Minnesota. ISSUES Port Auth. Duluth v. Midland Lill, (Minn.App.1988)(citing N.W.2d I. concluding Did the trial court err in at unambiguous?

that the II. Did the trial court in concluding err whole, Read as a covers expecta- that the insureds had no reasonable occasional, only wage low farm laborers.1 It *3 coverage? tion of purport does not to be a workers’

tion liability provision substitute. The con- express tains an liability. condition of ANALYSIS Cov- erage employee extends to “a farm while I. performing duties in connection with the * * * argues Decker the trial court erred farming operations only total remu- if * * * concluding liability policy that the farm is neration to all farmer is unambiguous. language Whether the of an added.)2 (Emphasis or less.” A farm policy ambiguous question insurance is is a of employee employee is defined as an Motors, Heights law. Columbia Inc. v. All insured whose duties are in connection with Ins., 32, (Minn.1979). state 275 N.W.2d 34 farming operations of the insured. language When the of an insurance is Decker admits that employee he is a farm reasonably subject to more than one inter who year earned more than in the pretation, ambiguous. is Id. Am accident, preceding the but he contends that biguity may also result from an irreconcilable he falls within two definitions conflict between terms or within “insured,” term “insured.” As an he would Rusthoven v. Commercial Stan subject not be earning to the exclusion for Ins., (Minn.1986). dard 387 N.W.2d 644 and therefore would be alone, A policy’s complexity however, does covered. ambiguous. not make it Farmers Home Lill, Mut. Ins. v. 332 N.W.2d 637-38 policy’s per first turns to the liability sonal form which an “in defines agree We with the trial court “[A]ny that the person sured” as: performing while policy is unambiguous. clear and As the trial employee.”3 duties as a domestic (Emphasis out, pointed added.) apparent court “it is from read is clear that Decker does not ing the declaration sheet that the in meet this simply definition of “insured” be only sured ‘farm or less in “performing cause he was not $2000 duties as a — ” payroll’ liability This promi limitation is employee.” domestic The record shows that nently located on the declaration sheet and is Decker was hired as a farm laborer. He was print. not in fine It is well established that performing “personal not “personal needs” or pages the declarations of an household related matters” on behalf of the part are a policy, crucial interpre Rather, helped operate Johannessens. tation of the declarations important dairy 600-acre helping repair and was scope determine the policy. Seaway machinery when he was hurt. express liability insured, 1. The persons exclusion for er than $2000 less bodily injury payable required benefits are days preceding the date of occurrence. occupa- or other added.) tional laws. policy's 3. The definition states: liability provision 2. The relevant states: 3.Employer's Liability Employees. —Farm Employee person employed Domestic means a Coverage Coverage L-Personal M- perform an insured to duties in connection Payments Medical to Others are extended to with the maintenance or use of the insured apply bodily injury to a farm while premises. persons perform This includes who performing duties in connection with the farm- household or domestic services or duties of a ing operations of an insured. similar nature elsewhere for an insured. however,- This provision, immediately This by followed conditions, persons performing does not include express two one of which states: agree coverage only b. We duties in connection with an insured's busi- employees, total remuneration to all oth- ness. fanner implements (rejecting “interpre repair of farm falls within dissection”). isolation, farming of a and the duties tation Read in the business employee. It does not fall within the may implement fall under this farm ordinary generally context, understood duties of clearly provision. inap Read it is employee.” Bend Mut. a “domestic See West plicable. Mut

Ins. v. Milwaukee Liability insurance is: (words (Minn.1986) pol in insurance type protection That of insurance which given ordinary gen icies should be their per- indemnifies one from to third erally meaning); St. Paul understood see sons as contrasted with insurance Computer Fire & Marine Ins. v. National for losses sustained the insured. (Minn.App. Systems, 490 N.W.2d (6th (in Dictionary 1992) Black’s Law ed. construing policies, terms *4 case, personal liability In this the form is given plain, ordinary popu their must be designed indemnify Decker from parties’ meaning, give lar effect to the (Minn. driving operating implement he is a farm intention), pet. rev. denied Nov. for 1992). party. Moreover, and has an accident with a third interpretation Decker’s case, policy indemnify that the would entirely negates policy’s policy4 of the the brought by party from claims the third separate definitions and treatment of “farm against liability provision, him. The howev- employees” employees.” An and “domestic er, “entirely designed is not to cover losses sustained interpretation which neutralizes one adopted in provision not be the con Decker himself the accident. There- should fore, susceptible correctly of another construction the trial court concluded that tract gives provision which effect to all its and is Decker was not covered this general Wyatt v. policy. consistent with the intent.” 434, 437, Wyatt, Minn. 58 N.W.2d 239 summary, unambiguous poli- under the (1953). Thus, trial not err 875 court did cy, employee performing farm Decker was a finding that Decker was not a domestic such, expressly farm ex- duties. As employee. 52.01. See Minn.R.Civ.P. coverage because Johannessens’ cluded from policy farm if all did not cover Alternatively, argues that he farm “insured,” policy meets another definition during days preceding the the 365 accident.

which states: Therefore, not err in re- the trial court did person performing c. A duties as a jecting claim. Decker’s in- of an insured is an implements respect ivith sured and other vehicles covered II. policy. that he is covered Decker contends added.) self-pro- Because under the doctrine of reason implement,” a “farm Deck-

pelled swather is argues He that the Jo- able argues er that he falls within this expectation had a reasonable hannessens of an “insured.” definition coverage under the doctrine Atwater Creamery v. Western Nat’l Mut. Co. interpre Again, disagree we with Decker’s (Minn.1985). The 277-79 N.W.2d phrases it tation because isolates words protect generally applied to indi doctrine is giving rather than them from their context where the insurance terms meaning pur with the viduals accordance obvious misunderstood, misrepresented have been pose policy. of the Motor Vehicle whole See Smith, 151, 157, legal would defeat 76 or where technicalities Casualty Co. v. 247 Minn. interpretation employment). of the argues This 4. Decker that he held a dual status mestic also language as a "farm policy, under the definitions—both contradicts the employee.” employee” a See and as “domestic purpose It also unreasonable Co., Guaranty Fidelity v. & Hall United States ex- nullifies the remuneration because it 13, 18, App. Ohio 155 N.E.2d Therefore, we decline to follow the clusion. being (holding does not a "farm laborer” reasoning. Ohio court's necessarily prevent being one from also in do- coverage reasonably suggests which the insured that the doctrine of reasonable- place. expectations applied except lieved was in See id. at 276-77. is not to be presence peculiar circumstances record, There is no evidence howev ambiguity such as or a hidden exclusion. er, actually the insured was misled. applied The doctrine should not be where a Corp., Hubred v. Control Data prominent policy term excludes 308, 311 the evidence does not indicate the insured A purchasing comprehensive farmer liabili- was misled. Marschall Reinsurance Ass’n ty expects protection against ordi- Minn., (Minn.App. nary, everyday certainly including lia- risks — unambiguous, the contract Because bility coverage employee injuries when support finding evidence does not apply. does not A misled, that the insured was we decline to subtle, expect any farmer not does but seri- apply expectations the reasonable doctrine to ous, gaps “comprehensive” coverage. this case. case, paid pre-

In this the Johannessens comprehensive mium to obtain DECISION expectation was their reasonable correctly trial court concluded that the by injured employ- cover would claims unambiguously ees. Their insurance broker himself sold the *5 laborers, Decker, excluded farm such as policy under the belief that it would cover $2,000 earning aggregate wage or more injured claims of Johannessens’ workers days preceding in the 365 the accident. The employment.1 the course of their The bro- policy clearly employees” delineated “farm ker, who had been the insurance business employees.” from “domestic It did not cover years, for 16 initially admitted that he losses sustained a farm lieved that the claim was covered under the operating implement. a farm Absent an am- policy; and even after he had studied the biguity showing and facts that the insured policy, including page, its declaration misled, the insured had no reasonable could not be certain that it did not cover expectation coverage. employee’s Johannessens’ claim. Affirmed. Two on pages lines the declarations are relevant. The first reads: DAVIES, Judge (dissenting). $100,000 Coverage Liability L—Personal respectfully dissent. (Each Occurrence). expectations

The doctrine of reasonable applied should be here. That A appears, doctrine allows few lines below that line a court to construe an policy with- 9303 INCL. INSURED FARM EMPLOY- relying “arbitrary out rules which do not $2,000 OR IN LESS PAYROLL. EES — reflect real-life situations.” Atwater Cream- Co., ery line, Co. v. Western Nat’l majority interpret Mut. Ins. 366 The this second as court, The doctrine did the trial to anbe exclusion of farm- recognizes “people purchase that employee coverage are others, relying agent company, or wages annually. to more than provide policy reality, that meets their starting needs.” Id. with “inch” —does line— Further, nothing at 277. exception per- Atwater not state an to the deposition, Right. Up Q. 1. In his the broker was asked and until Mr. Decker’s accident. following: answered the A. Yes. your impression Q. why you Q. Was it that if Mr. Johan- And that the basis of told them ($8,000) pay Eight nessen didn't Thousand they reported that when Decker, the accident of Mr. previous year, Dollars in the employees injured calendar that you they that felt that did have cover- property were cov- age for it? you ered when wrote that in ’86? they coverage. A. I felt that should have referring my thoughts A. You're to what were in '86? curred, it would liability coverage, but is rather inserted be identified on the sonal affecting premium. page by sequential one element declarations line num- to define Thus, pages ber 9303. the declarations do typed on comparable provision It is to a not, fact, contradict the rea- Johannessens’ page in an automobile the declarations expectations.2 sonable bag says “multiple that vehicle and air dis- applied,” or “auto and counts have been body strikingly complex Now to this advantage premium home discounts have printed policy provision actually applied,” premium plan “50+ dis- been coverage: cost the Johannessens symbol- applied” has been or “vehicle count Employer’s Liability Em- —Farm city-7A, territory-4”; provision or a class ployees Coverage Liability L—Personal * n * typed page on the declarations of a life insur- says age 45”; “insured’s ance — agree to b. We page in provisions typed on the declarations only if total remuneration all farmer to “ * * * say fire a homeowner’s employees, insured, persons other than family dwelling” “in framed town class 3.” days preced- or less in the 365 page provisions All of these declaration re- ing the date of occurrence. late, coverage, to the not to the extent but original.) cost of history of how the workers’ In this case the troublesome line—trouble- applied tion has been (and thus, majority some to the unfortunate- explains up how this exclusion showed ly, appellant) numbered “9303.” to the —is deny in the Johannessens’ them page application In the for insurance is a their reasonable of Annual Rates.” There entitled “Schedule operations originally All farm exclud- appears on it no reference to factor but compensation. ed from workers’ sequential there is reference to numbers Supreme urged Court that farm suggests some re- it-—9302 and 9301—which *6 by compensa- workers be covered workers’ lationship these three items. Line between tion, noting: 9301 identifies a situation where the farmer- Employees applicant has “FULL-TIME farming large involves Modern scale $5,000-7,999.99 Payroll” designates pre- and many oper- the same hazards as industrial $14.00, $18.00, $23.00, surcharges mium large-scale If the ations. $50,000,$100,000, coverages of and for by $27.00 farms are to be covered workmen’s $300,000, $500,000, respectively. however, and Line by compensation, it must be done 9302, turn, Employ- in reads “PART-TIME legislature. the $2,000-4999.99 Payroll” designates ees Breeders, Inc., Royal Nelson v. Harder $5.00, $6.00, $8.00, premium surcharges of (1971). 302, 307, Minn. identify, based These $10.00. Legislature respond- In the Minnesota applicant, premium on the answer of the the by Supreme suggestion re- ed to the Court charged. bewill quiring all farmers who more than case, $100,000 $2,000 wages coverage, in annual employees. employee wages compensation to their Small the disclosed had been $5,000, paying charge operations as those the extra would be above —defined (identified $2,000 left, year wages a in by Because the em- less than $18.00 —were were, fact, $2,000 subject liability. in to common law ployee wages between Then, $5,000, charge Minn. Laws ch. 657. in the the extra should have (identified 9302). And, more legislature modified the law so that been $6.00 farmers, paid up to in annu- implication, employee wages were less those who the (as Johannessen), again from workers’ represented by wages, al excluded than $0; and, again exposed to eom- compensation charge the extra as oc- —and might against be suffi- Perhaps expecta- are read the insurer the doctrine of reasonable cies 2. required Simply applying tions is not here. the cient. general ambiguities poli- rule that in insurance expec- had a reasonable liability. Minn. Laws ch. The Johannessens law tort mon keep policies up- RAM its tation that would amount was raised to 574. provide appropriate cover- $8,000. § to-date and thus ch. Minn. Laws age. I would reverse and remand today. That is the law basis of reasonable excluded from workers’ Those farmers alternatively as an I would treat this case routinely protect themselves compensation appropriate occasion for reformation by purchasing comprehensive insur- is unconscionable for policies, policies more or less similar ance gap to leave the in RAM to claim an intent purchased by the Johannessens. the one coverage that the Johannessens. blind-sides insurer, Unfortunately, the Johannessens’ had And it is obvious that the Johannessens of Minnesota Reinsurance Association comprehen- buy a defective no intent to such (RAM), comprehensive personal liabil- used a liability policy. should order sive This court ity policy that retains the limit form pulled off some that the 1970s form— employee wages dating back to the 1973- dusty shelf —be reformed to match the Thus, literally, when read the RAM 78 law. buy in the parties intended to and to sell policy' any “comprehensive” basis —without marketplace. 1989 insurance law, logic, solely a reason or but as historical yet a third reason for a reversal. There is gap liability coverage accident —creates a company It is unconscionable for the to sell— any pays who farmer conspicuous notice —a without buy wages annual and does not also a work- devastating gap a leaves such (an compensation policy obligation ers’ way fact That defect is no relieved $8,000). deny- starts at see reason against agent proceeding that an action ing simply Johannessens appropriate for failure to obtain the cover- replace RAM failed to its obsolete form cause age. For RAM to sell such defective dividing the current with one that reflects unconscionable, independent agent lia- line between workers’ Thus, bility. I would rule that to have liability, common law a law that has been $8,000 in number other than the exclusion is effect since 1980!3 provision. an unconscionable —and invalid— majority says I note that I would reverse. purport “does not to be workers’ true, tion That but the substitute.” purport provide comprehensive liabil-

does *7 ity coverage, which like a contract to sounds up point they where are

cover farmers to the obligated carry compensation. workers’ KERBER, In re Arbitration of Sandra obligation The Johannessens had Petitioner, Appellant, carry Minnesota law to employees earned nowhere tion because their triggers near the workers’ com- INSURANCE, ALLIED GROUP pensation responsibility. give RAM did not Respondent. than one them choice of other No. C7-94-23. with the limitation. There was no price quotation to them of a Appeals Court of of Minnesota. an floor rather than the floor. May presented that There was no evidence a choice of insurer offered as $8,000 fig- appropriate with the

endorsement $2,000 limit. ure to cancel out the denying coverage trial court only possible been found and neither insurer nor 3. The reason for theory, majority misrepresentation even assert that let alone that I can nor rely discern application. misrepresentation it. But no