*1 MIRLAS, as trustee for the E. Patricia Kathleen Rose Fields

Next-of-Kin of Fields, Deceased, Joseph

and Daniel

Respondent, PARROTT,

Stephen Travis al., Defendants,

Illinois Farmers Insurance

Company, Appellant.

No. C4-02-2021. of Minnesota. Appeals

Court 24, 2003.

June *2 appointment

vacate approval and of the settlement, reverse portion we of the judgment. Because Illinois Farmers is no liable uninsured-motorist bene- fits claimed a result of the' accident that Fields, killed Kathleen and Daniel we af- firm the district court’s dismissal of Mik- las’s out claims of the death of Joseph Daniel Fields.

FACTS brother, Kathleen Rose Fields and her Vukelich, Edina, MN, John E. for re- Fields, Joseph Daniel killed in a were one- spondent. car May accident on Fields siblings passengers. were Neither Beckman, Daniel A. Kathleen M. owner nor the of the involved Loucks, auto- Hunter, L.L.P., & Gislason Minne- decedents, mobile tonka, was But the MN, appellant. mother, and respondent their Patricia E. HARTEN, Considered decided Miklas, were insured as members of the STONEBÚRNER, Presiding Judge, son, surviving household of Miklas’s MINGE, Judge, and Judge. policy a him by issued to appellant Illinois Company. Farmers Insurance OPINION In January brought Miklas a STONEBURNER, Judge wrongful-death action against the driver Appellant Insurance and the owner of the vehicle involved in Company challenges the district court’s In action, accident. same Miklas denial of its motion to vacate order sued Illinois Farmers for uninsured-motor- respondent Patricia E. Miklas ist brought benefits. Miklas the lawsuit as trustee of next-of-kin of Kathleen Rose trustee for next-of-kin of both Kath- Fields and Daniel Josephs ap- Fields and leen and Daniel Fields. Miklas asserted proving settlement of a brought by lawsuit complaint that the court had Miklas as trustee of the next-of-kin of her as of the trustee next-of-kin of both Fields, Kathleen Rose a minor. During 29,1997. children on September negotiations her com- Illinois Farmers entered into settlement plaint the uninsured Miklas, negotiations with as trustee of the owner, Farmers, vehicle’s and Illinois Fields, next-of-kin of Kathleen and agreed represented las herself as the trastee for to settle asserted on behalf of Kath- the next-of-kin to Kathleen Fields and $30,000, leen Fields’s next-of-kin for pay- But Miklas was not able to “as pointed trustee for the next-of- day as trustee until the of the kin of peti- Kathleen Rose Fields.” Miklas settlement-approval hearing, which oc- curred tioned the district court more than years three' after the Believing deaths of Kathleen and settlement. Daniel Fields. Be- this to be routine settlement, cause the hearing district court its approve abused discre- minor tion by denying Illinois Farmers’ motion did not attend. to vacate Miklas as are not clear on reasons that

For court, this next-of-kin Kathleen provided to trustee record actually appointed as not Fields made more than three after child, at the for either so the next-of-kin by denying Kathleen Field’s death *3 17, 2002, settlement-approval January motion to vacate of the settle- apparently re- counsel for Miklas hearing, ment that was into under the mis- entered appoint as that court Miklas the quested appoint- belief had taken that Miklas appointed court The district trustee. ed trustee within three of death? both dece- trustee for the next-of-kin of las an caused When insured’s death is order, and, the approved in the same dents expiration an of by uninsured does Farmers learned Illinois first settlement. wrongful- of for a the statute limitations trustee, Miklas was not the that action com- death before action is complaint and had in her alleged she as ter- menced the uninsured driver it re- negotiations, when during settlement minate the of the uninsured-mo- Illinois court order. the district ceived torist-coverage carrier? moved Minn. immediately under that P. 60.02 to vacate the order R. Civ. approved trustee and appointed Miklas as ANALYSIS ground that the set- settlement on the

the 1. Motion to vacate it en- was void had been tlement because misrepresen- and tered into mistake stipulation a of settlement Vacating Farmers also moved tation. the largely the discretion of rests within by remaining claims the asserted dismiss court, “the action district and court’s next-of-kin Dan- behalf of the of Miklas on it unless regard will not be reversed had ground that Miklas iel Fields in such an shown that the court acted be claims, Illi- and standing assert no justice.” arbitrary manner as frustrate for Farmers had nois Ins., Co., N.W.2d v. St. Paul 306 Johnson had Miklas not been claims because (Minn.1981) 571, Myers v. (quoting 573 prior to the pointed as trustee 469, Co., 474, 252 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Pecker limitations wrongful- the statute of of (1977)). disputes of 599 Settlement claims. death and will litigation highly is favored without Farm- denied Illinois The district court by Id. lightly aside a court. not be set motion vacate order ers’ avoid a settlement party seeking “The set- approving as Miklas showing sufficient has burden tlement, all of re- but dismissed Miklas’s (citation vacation.” Id. grounds its lim- the statute of maining because omitted). A aside may set district actions itations if minor on behalf of a settlement made appeals the de- expired. mis based on a mutual settlement was order, nial of its motion to vacate Elbers, 374 v. take of fact. Snesrud challenging filed a of review notice (Minn.App.1985), review 832 N.W.2d dismissal her claim for uninsured- 19, 1985); Eliseuson Dec. denied asserted due to motorist 282, 290 Frayseth, Minn. of Daniel Fields. death (1971). 685, 686 ISSUES her asser- argues that mistaken appointed as trustee that she was court abuse its dis- 1. Did district Kathleen and mo- the next-of-kin of Illinois Farmers’ denying cretion 586 insurer, validity responsible to the

Fields in 1997 immaterial driver’s that the because settlement lapse allowed prior driver had way prerequisite in no for the trustee “is to the accident. Id. We affirmed the dis- of an uninsured motorist discretion, trict court’s exercise declin- supports this claim claim.” Miklas with ing to vacate the settlement because we v. Galaj citations to Farm Ins. Co. State public policy concluded that dictates that da, (Minn.1982), 564 N.W.2d insurance the court not reward an compa- Co., Minn. Wacker v. Allstate Ins. ny’s diligence making lack of the neces- (1977), of which in both sary investigation of the claims its volve who settled uninsured-motor widows Id. death ist claims out of the of their *4 The policy had considerations this case husbands. Whether widows been appointed trustee for the next-of-kin of are not same as in Snesrud because their not an deceased husbands was issue responsible this case Miklas was for ob- case, in either and these do not cases stand taining appointment as of the next- trustee proposition asserted. Further of-kin of Kathleen and Daniel Fields before more, can settle a whether insurer initiating a lawsuit recover claims on wrongful claim for uninsured benefits next-of-kin. behalf of their See Minn.Stat. death with other than the someone trustee 573.02., 1, § (stating 3 that the dis- subds. is not deceased’s next-of-kin rele jurisdiction trict appoint court has Miklas’s vant to claims because she never represent trustee to the deceased in a asserted an individual claim Illinois wrongful-death petition action if the only only Farmers. Miklas asserted claims as appointment brought as trustee is trustee of the next-of-kin of Kathleen and within three after the decedent’s Fields, only capacity and that is the death). appointment within was Farmers, in which she dealt with Illinois as control, las’s and knowledge of the non- all of clearly the settlement documents appointment readily was available to her indicate. Miklas’s assertion she had attorneys, appointment and her but her appointed been therefore a trustee is ma complaint. was asserted in the terial fact to this case. The district court denied Illinois Farm- The district court did not address ers’ motion to vacate the order on the Illinois Farmers’ motion requesting vaca basis that settlements are favored and appointment of Miklas’s as trustee. that Illinois Farmers chose to settle with- But appointment, without such Miklas had out confirming Miklas’s assertion that she no authority to enter into a settlement as had trustee for the next- of of the next-of-kin Kathleen of-kin of Kathleen We have af- Fields authority pursue and no firmed a district court’s refusal to vacate as trustee of next-of-kin of Daniel approval of settlement of a intervened, Fields. The district court claim for the limits of deceased’s unin- Farmers, knowledge without the of Illinois sured-motorist when insurer appoint attempt in an as trustee discovered, after settle- settlement, to save the no had authori ment, responsible was, that the ty to provisions “[L]imitation do so. in a fact, Snesrud, 374 N.W.2d at statutorily jur created cause parties of action are But the to the settlement in Gavenda, representa- isdictional.” Snesrud both relied on the See Ortiz v. 590 119, (Minn.1999). tions of All Nation Insurance Company, N.W.2d 122 Minn.Stat. that, position Miklas’s is that the district 573.02, on written provides § subd. wrongly applied three-year court stat- petition ac- ute of limitations an action jurisdiction of having the court action, tions to this contract which has a subdivi- provisions falling within six-year statute of limitations. But Miklas appoint shall suitable sions or limi- application confuses of the statute of trustee to com- competent person as tations to bar her contract claim with the action. or continue such mence legal of the limita- effect of wrongful- for a of limitations The statute period claim her underlying tions or Dan- on behalf of Kathleen death action contract claim. expired before the district iel Fields had trustee; there- appointed The law is well established that the stat- fore, Miklas as trustee ute of limitations on a claim for uninsured the district court is void because run begins motorist benefits on the date in the appoint a trustee jurisdiction subject of the accident and is to the six- Ortiz, at matter. See year applicable limitation to contract ac- 573.02, § subd. (holding that Minn.Stat. Lund, Hughes tions. prior appointment of a trustee requires the *5 (Minn.App.1999) (stating that in three-year statute expiration of the to the Minnesota a claim for uninsured-motorist statutory period). limitations within the by coverage governed six-year is statute of entity with whom limitations contained Minn.Stat. exist, and the district court settled did not 541.05, 1(1)); § subd. Edwards v. State into a by to “breathe life trying erred Co., Auto. Ins. Farm Mut. anything has never been more claim that (Minn.App.1986) (stating six-year that ” ‘nullity.’ Id. Because the district than a for contract actions statute of limitations action in court’s uninsured-motorist-coverage applies to the next-of-kin for Kathleen con- liability claim arose from because law, contrary Fields was Daniel tract), review denied Mar. by de- abused its discretion district court 1987). motion to vacate nying Illinois Farmers’ appointing Miklas as trustee the order noted, correctly As the district approving the settlement. coverage designed is uninsured-motorist position place injured party an the same 2. Dismissal of claims on behalf occupied have if the tortfeasor they would of Daniel Fields next-of-kin Dairyland Ins. Co. v. had been insured. filed a notice of review Miklas has (Minn.1995). 363, 365 Starkey, 535 N.W.2d remaining challenging dismissal of her coverage pur is motorist Uninsured claims, including against her claims Illinois the risk that protect against chased for uninsured motorist benefits Farmers injures purchaser the motorist who Fields. Miklas for the death of Daniel * n * pay and unable to is uninsured against Illinois argues that her claims entitled to damages purchaser is Farmers are not victim, law. The recover under tort are contract claims that are still viable words, poli collects under her own other were asserted within the con they because liability cy compensation six-year statute of limitations.1 tract above, Fields she cannot assert next-of-kin of Daniel because Miklas does not 1. As noted claims on of his next-of-kin. appointment as trustee for the behalf have a valid paid if the precedent would have uninsured a condition to Illinois carrier obligation pay motorist had been Farmers’ uninsured mo- torist benefits. Co., Ins. McIntosh v. State Farm Mut. (Minn.1992) (citation 476, 479 The district court did not err in dismiss- omitted) that uninsured-motorist- (holding claims, ing all remaining of'Miklas’s includ- party not true first coverage provider is ing those claims for uninsured-motorist claim and that whether an event benefits from the death of Daniel triggering liability is “accident” tortfeasor). perspective

viewed of the from dispute not that if the driver Miklas does DECISION insured, this case had been failure to The district court abused its discretion an action the driver within bring by denying Farmers’ Illinois motion to va- preclude any recovery three would judgment cate the appointing Miklas as from the driver’s insurer. And trustee for the next-of-kin of Kathleen supreme court has stated: approving Fields and the minor pay premi- do not think those who We that was based on Illinois a pool ums into for uninsured motorist representa- Farmers’ reliance on Miklas’s reasonably expect those funds duly appointed that she was the trust- pay compensation to be available to ee. The district court did not err dis- which, injuries if the uninsured mo- missing Miklas’s claims insured, torist were his insurance com- for uninsured-motorist benefits * * * pany pay. would not have to when limita- statute of Uninsured motorist is not no- tions for a action against *6 part fault coverage; fault extinguished the uninsured driver proven un- uninsured motorist must be liability Farmers’ for such benefits. words, der tort law. In other part part. in Affirmed and reversed in coverage, uninsured motorist the distinc- tion between un- MINGE, Judge (concurring part, dis- radically

der that different senting part). party coverage. than it is under first Id. I concur in majority’s resolution of

Illinois Farmers’ for uninsured- the issue concerning the dismissal of the depends motorist benefits on the insured’s action on behalf of Daniel legal dissent, however, entitlement to from unin- respectfully recover I sured exists in this majority’s which from the resolution of the other case, case because the statute of limitations has issue this and I would affirm the expired for all upholding claims driver district court’s decision the set arising out of the deaths of Kathleen tlement with Illinois Farmers Insurance Fields and Daniel Fields. The of Company. basis Settlements are favored. See Cos., three-year dismissal is not that a statute of Johnson v. St. Paul Ins. (Minn.1981); Johnson, limitations for claims Gould v. plies to the claim (Minn.App.1986); for uninsured-motorist benefits, Elbers, (Minn. of the Snesrud v. 374 N.W.2d 830 three-year bring- App.1985), statute of limitations for review denied Dec. 1985). ing extinguishes proceeding The settlement in this legal right insured’s recover from parties good was entered into all ap the basis for represents faith obligation.

pellant’s LECY, Appellant,

Duane AND

BURLINGTON NORTHERN CO., FE

SANTA RAILWAY

Respondent.

No. C9-02-2015. Minnesota. Appeals

Court

June