*1 LANSING, Judge (concurring specially). demonstrate: support disposition of a serves why disposition ordered majority’s holding I in the concur interests; dis- what alternative best child’s disposition required no- modification of the considered; why such positions hearing. and a For that tice to the appropriate. were not See alternatives agree I with the result. reason 260.185, 1. Minn.Stat. § Here, failed to make the trial court findings support written

sufficient M.R.S., disposition. See

second findings are essen-

N.W.2d at 151. Written meaningful appellate review.

tial to enable 392, L.K.W., 372 N.W.2d In re Welfare to make (Minn.App.1985). The failure SMITH, al., Appellants, Franklin et W. findings consti- statutorily required v. error. In re tutes reversible Welfare of FARMERS INSURANCE ILLINOIS L.B., (Minn.App.1987). 404 N.W.2d COMPANY, Respondent. explaining findings The trial court made appel- House would serve why Chisholm KOMPELIEN, al., Appellants, et Verlin fact, neither the interests. In lant’s best v. the trial court’s order nor modification type of treat- AUTOMOBILE describe UNITED SERVICES memorandum ASSOCIATION, Respondent. House or how provided by Chisholm ment help appellant’s solve treatment would No. C0-89-2150. M.R.S., at 151 problems. See Appeals of Minnesota. Court findings identifying juve- (failure make disposi- suitability of problems and nile’s May re- remedy constitutes tion ordered as July Denied Review error). versible findings were Although the trial court’s disposition, support the new

insufficient findings further but do not remand for

we completed appellant has

simply reverse as Further dis- stay at Chisholm House.

his purpose findings serve no

positional would L.B., point proceeding.

at this at 346.

DECISION failing give trial court erred hearing and a before parties notice The trial disposition.

ordering the new modifying, within a few

court erred any without original disposition

days, its justi- without in circumstances and

change by failing to The trial court erred

fication. by statute. findings mandated

make findings

However, further remand for appellant com-

unnecessary because has

pleted his sentence.

Reversed.

LANSING, J., specially. concurs *2 policies pre-

tations in were and valid coverage cluded uninsured motorist accident. We affirm.

FACTS parties following stipulated The' 24, 1986, January appellants facts. On in- passengers were in a taxicab that was volved in an automobile accident in Manza- nillo, Mexico. At least one of the involved Kompeliens vehicles was uninsured. The in were named insureds an automobile policy issued United Services insurance Automobile Association. The Smiths were policy by Illinois insureds on a issued poli- Farmers Company. Insurance Both unambiguous cies limi- contained territorial provisions, excluding coverage tation occurring Appellants in accidents Mexico. submitted claims for uninsured motorist coverage respective Both to their insurers. benefits, companies relying denied on provisions poli- territorial limitation in their cies. Schwebel, L. Dyck, Sharon Goetz Van Sieben, P.A., Minneapolis, for

and Franklin Smith, al., ISSUE Kompelien, et and et W. Verlin al. unambiguous Is an limitation territorial Dovre, Gallivan, A. P.

Louise Jeremiah policy in contained an insurance Krochock, Rider, Bennett, Egan Richard & restriction on uninsured enforceable Arundel, Minneapolis, for Illinois Farmers coverage? motorist Ins. Co. Burke, Gwin, ANALYSIS A. A.

Barbara Mark Cousi- neau, McGuire, Shaughnessy and dispute in do not the facts Anderson, Minneapolis, for United Services case, raise an but issue of Auto. Ass’n. interpretation. The construction of a stat subject question ute is a of law and is to de by WOZNIAK, Considered and decided appeal. Hibbing novo Edu review SHORT, C.J., and PARKER and JJ. Employment cation Association v. Public Board, 369 N.W.2d Relations OPINION (Minn.1985). SHORT, Judge. Every policy automobile insurance Following issued in must unin provide an automobile accident in Mex- Minnesota ico, coverage. Franklin Smith sured and underinsured and Sandra and Verlin motorist Nancy sought Kompelien (Supp.1985). uninsured Minn.Stat. subd. 3a respective provide their in- The mini coverage motorist from combined must $25,000 $50,- denied, per person Both and the mum limits of surers. claims were separate per Kompeliens began scope ac- 000 Id. The of unin Smiths accident. judgment. ac- sured co-exten declaratory tions for Those to be the trial court. sive with other afforded under tions consolidated summary Burgraff v. Act. judgment, On cross motions for No-Fault Aetna Life Co., Casualty trial limi- & court declared 3(2). v. Federal Insurance (Minn.1984); Appellants argue provisions these Kaysen Co., (Minn.1978). legislative 924-25 create a ban on territorial cover- exclusions, express age exceptions. with insurance Parties to contracts Appellants argue recognizing then an- fit, they subject see free contract *3 exception prohibited by is other to the ban Mutu restrictions. See Waseca statutory statutory rule of “ex- the construction that Noska, v. N.W.2d al Insurance Co. 331 expressed ceptions in a law shall be con- Oja, 258 917, (Minn.1983); Bobich v. 926 to strued exclude all others.” Minn.Stat. 287, (1960); 294, 19, 24 Minn. (1988). Appellants’ argument 645.19 is § 65B.49, (1984) see also Minn.Stat. 8 subd. § coverage flawed. Exclusions of for acci- (contract provisions give statutory way to States, the occurring dents outside United requirements). possessions, its territories and and Canada purporting to exclude certain Clauses prohibited nowhere under the statute. are up uniformly have types coverage of been Economy v. Fire Casual- See Cashman & held, provided they unambiguous Co., 50, (8th Cir.1986). ty 795 Thus F.2d 51 statutory provisions. do not conflict with they remain free to contract as the See, e.g., v. Illinois Farmers Thommen not holding wish. Our does create a new (Minn. Co., 651, Insurance N.W.2d 437 654 exception and not thus does run afoul 1989) (UIM by exclusion for vehicles owned quoted the rule of construction. v. Mu insured); Myers State Farm named Co., 336 Insurance tual Automobile Virtually every state has considered 288, (Minn.1983) (exclusion of N.W.2d 292 may issue of an insurer terri the whether by named coverage UIM for vehicle owned torially coverage limit uninsured motorist In insured); v. Illinois Farmers Vieths state as to limita when law is silent such Co., (Minn. 575, surance 578 upheld tions has a territorial limitation. exclusion), App.1989) (family-owned vehicle Co., v. See Curtis Allstate Insurance 473 1989); (Minn. 15, pet. rev. denied Aug. (E.D.La.1979), 315 F.2d F.Supp. 631 aff'd Family Mutual Insurance Co. American v. (5th Cir.1980); Fischer State Farm 79 Luhman, (Minn. 453, v. N.W.2d 456 438 Co., Automobile Insurance Mutual 495 App.1989) (family-owned vehicle exclusion Hein (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986); 909 So.2d pet. rev. denied coverage), from UIM Co., rich-Grundy v. Allstate Insurance 1989); Crews v. Criterion (Minn. 21, June (1988); 810, N.E.2d 402 Mass. 525 651 Co., (Minn. 83, Insurance N.W.2d 85 370 Farm Insurance Co. v. State Auto Cabuz (care, custody exclu App.1985) and control zi, Lo (1983); N.H. A.2d 129 123 462 sion). exclusionary None clauses of these Fire Liberty v. Mutual Insurance vato authorization; was statutory had none Co., (1987). P.2d 109 Wash.2d 1242 needed. Harleysville But see Gerardi v. Insurance expressly statutory provision No Co., (1981). Pa.Super. 439 A.2d 160 motor prohibits exclusion uninsured case, construing a court was In each coverage occurring outside ist for accidents required uninsured motorist statute Appellants argue, how United States. equal liability to coverage in an amount ever, pro provision impliedly is that such a purchased by the insured. (1984 & Minn.Stat. 65B.41-.71 hibited §§ policy support also Sound reasons specific note Supp.1985). Appellants unin- validity of limits on provision requires insurer coverage. sured accidents pay basic economic benefits for coverage must providing U.M. Insurers States, occurring United in the United on the risk that their rates base possessions, or Canada. See Minn. States will an uninsured insured be struck requires provision 65B.46. Another Stat. § certainly to ex- It rational vehicle. liability insur pay insurer residual the number of countries where occurring clude in the United ance for accidents or so or motorists unknown States, possessions, or uninsured its territories 65B.49, impractical. high as to make subd. Canada. Curtis, F.Supp. Respon- liability at 316-17. Under insurance the residual reparation obligor pay, shall be liable attempting dents unin- are not restrict insured, sums behalf of the which the coverage in a sured motorist manner not obligated to legally pay insured is applicable coverage. to the other The terri- damages bodily injury because torial limitation is identical to the arising property damage out of the own- restrictions contained No-Fault Act ership, or use of a maintenance motor personal injury protection concerning damage injury vehicle if the or occurs liability coverage. See Minn.Stat. state, within this the United States of 3(2). America, possessions, territories or or its Finding express implied or statu * * * Canada. tory prohibition on a territorial exclusion *4 loss No-fault basic economic benefits occurring Mexico, clause in for accidents similarly subject are to territorial limita- our the task is to enforce contract accord by statutory specific tions authorization: ing to its terms. The territorial restric injury If the or occurs accident outside policies tions in the two at contained issue States, this state United United thus are valid and enforceable. Canada, possessions, States or fol- lowing persons surviving and their de- DECISION pendents suffering injury loss from aris- A territorial limitation on uninsured mo- ing out of maintenance or use of a motor torist for accidents outside being vehicle or a result of as struck as a States, posses- United its territories and pedestrian motorcycle by right a have a sions, Canada, * * provi- and is an enforceable to basic loss economic benefits *. sion. (1988). 65B.46, Minn.Stat. subd. 2 § Affirmed. (UM) coverage Uninsured is by territorially policy. also restricted PARKER, J., opinion. dissents with statutory There is authorization limitation. PARKER, (dissenting). Judge question The then can becomes: such a I respectfully ground dissent on the that statutory implied? authorization be I contrary majority opinion explicit is to argument respondents’ submit as- language has statutory and reversed 180 by sumes its conclusion the assertion that degrees statutory tenet a fundamental of “the uninsured motorist of the construction. territorially No-Fault Act is neutral.” may Mandatory coverages re- contain 65B.49, (1988), Minn.Stat. subd. 3a re- § exceptions only strictions and as autho- quires, coverage: mandatory UM statute; 65B.49, by rized Minn.Stat. § * * * provide The must limits (1988), subd. 8 states: * * * * * * $25,000 injury of of to because one [A]ny coverage comply issued shall $50,000 person in any accident be- section, provisions any with of this * * * injury cause of to two or more provisions of law or of contract not- persons any in accident. withstanding. (Emphasis supplied). broadly To call such “territorially language inclusive in neutral” I statutory the context a scheme of contain- policies These contain territorial limita- ing specific authorization territorial re- coverages; only tions on three two are major strictions as to the other two cover- by explicitly authorized statute: ages logic. is of dubious liability, a third-party 1.Residual cover- II age follows the vehicle rather than which person, specifically statutory authorized to be A basic maxim of construction application territorially expressed phrase, limited in its in the ancient “inclusio 65B.49, 3(2): alterius,” est Minn.Stat. unius exclusio Black’s § can, (5th Ed.1979) realistically, translates as ular insurance field be Dictionary Law today legisla- of one is the exclusion inclusion said to the creature of the be “[t]he in Minn. This has been codified argue another.” Contending out ture. interests ev- Stat. 645.19: grounds ery “minor” amendment on in be

Exceptions expressed a law shall public policy private interest. Virtual- all construed to exclude others. ly every session since enactment of the No-Fault Act has seen it “fine-tuned.” (Emphasis supplied). bodies, Legislative representa- with their majority turned con- has hearing procedures, tive character Recognizing on its head. struction admirably such task. I am at suited for a al- sections of the statute aforementioned should, why loss understand courts at geographical limitations to mandated low date, this late allow themselves to be used coverage, liability they, implica- PIP and allow limitations imply amendments to tion, in elude another. exceptions statutorily or mandated cov- (1988), de- subd. 3 erages. I would reverse the trial court. scope mandatory fines the UM paragraphs explicitly in seven numbered exceptions

identifying and limitations *5 imposed on allowed be for limi-

policies. Authorization conspicuous by

tation its absence. first-party

No territorial limitations on initially by the authorized scheme. Minn.Stat.

Minnesota no-fault 65B.46(2) (1974). They im- have been for In the Matter of the Recommendation COPELAND, posed by Discharge amendment: of Bruce A. Po- * Officer, Department. lice Police geo- In an amendment allowed on graphic limitation basic economic No. C4-89-2118. (which include loss did not benefits benefits. UM Appeals Minnesota. Court 10). * “geo- In an amendment allowed a May as graphic” limitation UM benefits July Denied Review following party coverage first owned, mo- party to uninsured tor vehicle. ra-

Respondents argue that there distinguishing UM between

tional basis provided

protection and other Act. The short answer the No-Fault

under a must have been evident

is that distinction it legislature, legislative took several sessions to set territori-

action over pres- as geographic restrictions we

al and them, process

ently find and this involved unin-

comprehensive overhaul coverage re-

sured/underinsured at 1985 session.

quirements regard brings us to what I

This telling majority opinion: of the error

most which has received undertakes a task

it legislative which is the attention and

vast body. The entire vehic-

prerogative of that