*1 question. peti- the offense in view of prove early

tioner’s re- failure

lease would danger

public, point. we need not this decide latter subject jurisdic-

Petitioner remains to the

tion of the Minnesota Corrections Board or

its successor. GALLE,

Jerry al., Appellants, et

EXCALIBUR INSURANCE

CO., Respondent. STANDFIELD, Respondent,

Robert

EXCALIBUR INSURANCE

CO., Appellant.

Nos.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 1982.

Lommen, Nelson, Sullivan & Cole Mark N. Stageberg, Minneapolis, for Excal- ibur Ins. Co. Converse,

Peterson Bell & L. Willard Anderson, Paul, Converse and David S. St. *2 65B.44, appellants respondent 81-264 and subd. 1 § states that “basic economic loss pro- benefits shall vide reimbursement for all losses suffered through injury arising out of maintenance ** or use of a motor vehicle OTIS, regarding material facts the three Justice. accidents dispute. Galle and Schroedl were These involve under appeals claims both engaged in loading and unloading (1980) Stat. of the Minnesota No- § heavy of stationary boxes inside Fault Act for vehicles.1 Insurance unloading while vehicles. Plaintiffs in case injured opened Standfield was 81-264, Jerry Schroedl, # Frank and rear door of his truck to unload his dolly at brought individually against suit their em- delivery end of his The route. ployer’s insurer, no-fault Excalibur Insur- issue on appeal inju- is whether plaintiffs’ ance Co. cases were consolidated for ries arose out of “maintenance or use of court, hearing before district which a motor definition which is granted defendant motion Excalibur’s 65B.43, set forth in Minn.Stat. § summary judgment. Plaintiffs Galle and appeal from that order. Robert or use “Maintenance of a motor vehicle” Standfield, plaintiff in case # sued means maintenance or use of a to motor recover no-fault Summary benefits. favor, judgment granted vehicle, was in his including, as a incident to appeals. order defendant Excalibur vehicle, its or maintenance use as a occu- We affirm in both cases. into, pying, entering alighting and it. Maintenance or use employed Schroedl were of a motor vehicle drivers, truck picking up delivering and (2) does not include conduct in the freight assigned on city routes. Schroedl loading unloading course of the vehi- injured 27,1976, on February his back cle unless the conduct occurs while occu- he attempted lift heavy to a wooden crate pying, entering from it. from the floor his was truck. He stand- added). (emphasis ing parked inside the which was at the loading Recently loading we dock. Galle considered was November attempted unloading to plaintiff clause when a was lift a heavy box. He standing too was dumpster struck by a which fell from the stationary trailer, inside a unloading cargo rear of a garbage Krupenny v. West loading onto the dock. Robert Standfield Ins. Mutual was employed Advance United drive a (Minn. 1981). Although the mechanical un loading loading dumpster made Minn.Stat. freight at Twin City area locations. On 65B.43, 3 applicable, recovery subd. under 5,May 1976, he had finished his route and the Act was denied because parked loading his truck at the dock. He alight into went to the rear of the trailer from the truck when the open the door and retrieve two wheel dumpster case, In fell. all three dolly from inside. As opened the door plaintiffs loading or un broke, cable jamming the causing door and loading occupying activities and were Standfield injure to fall forward and him- they their vehicles at the time self. All three men have received workers’ injuries. suffered their require Thus both compensation benefits for lost income due 65B.43, ments 3(2) disabilities subd. sustained and now seek addi- tional compensation. no-fault been met. statutorily

1. The trailer aof truck is defined as 2(c) a vehicle under Minn.Stat. § however, believe, Property We do not that all enson v. unloading injuries (Minn. incurred Casualty contrast, 1979). intoxicated, while into uncon necessarily compensable exposure from a vehicle are scious who dies due to overnight under the No-Fault Act. The must sitting when left in car has not arise also out the “maintenance or use of from the use injury arising suffered an a motor Engel vehicle as a vehicle.” Minn.Stat. the automobile as vehicle. See *3 (1980). 3 hold dinger Casualty To otherwise v. State Auto & Underwrit ers, 202, coverage would lead to extreme and absurd (1975). 306 Minn. 236 N.W.2d 596 Legislature results which we are the certain injury Where it is that the established coverage never intended. Would no-fault loss “was natural and reasonable incident in a security exist situation where a Brinks of consequence of the use the [insured] guard standing in the rear of his truck Dealers, Independent Associated unloading money by is shot a robber? Cos., Inc. v. Mutual Service Ins. 304 Minn. coverage Would be an extended to instance 179, 182, (1975) (footnote 229 N.W.2d 516 freight being where the fire unloaded were omitted), a relationship sufficient between works and from acci injury the resulted injury the and the use of the vehicle for explosion? dental We do not believe these transportation to allow purposes exists re are the is for which Act intended to covery. provide compensation, for is no causal there We no hesitation in finding the relationship between and the use injury encompassed within the of the transportation purposes. vehicle for injured by part Act. He was of the Haagenson Proper vehicle itself which malfunctioned ty Casualty 648, 277 N.W.2d 652 attempting piece equip to unload a of However, ment the rear of the truck. The Commissioners’ Comments to Section we do not believe that the activities in 1(a)(6) of 1972 the Uniform Motor Vehicle Act, Accident Reparations the discussing arose the “maintenance or use of a definition of use mo- “maintenance or motor vehicle” within the of meaning the tor vehicle” state: No-Fault Act. While it true lifting While meaning “use” has a broader than unlikely when the vehicle in operating driving the re- question apparent is a it is quirement that use of the motor vehicle the occur of not because be “as a qualifies motor vehicle” term use of vehicle of but because the nature exemption both the tort and the plaintiffs’ employment. This is not one availability basic activities “whose costs should be are nearly more limited activities motoring part of allocated to as an automo whose costs should be allocated to motor- package.” bile insurance Commissioner’s of an automobile insurance supra. Comments package. The injuries 14 (1980). Uniform Laws Annotated 55-56 lifting cargo were work-re- The maintenance or use issue been has lated rather than the result of an accident cases, discussed in several but “each case involving transpor- the use of a presenting question great such a must to a purposes. Denying tation no-fault benefits degree, turn on particular present- allowing facts compensation workers’ bene- Dealers, ed.” Independent Associated Inc. fits is consistent with purpose Cos., 179, v. Mutual compensation provide Service Ins. 304 Minn. statute —to 182, 516, (1975) (footnote 518 compensation arising out of and omitted). person injured See, A en- employment. e.g., in the course of tering a car passen- become a Lewis Connolly Contracting 196 ger 108, would recovery. Haag- be allowed See 581 N.W. Further- more, of the of the plaintiffs’ such a is consistent with the result trailers as vehi- Act, general purposes ignore No-Fault stat- cles would language clear statutes, ed 65B.42 statute. construing When “[t]he general rule is language that where is un- impact detrimental of automobile ac- ambiguous, expressed the clearly uncompensated per-

cidents intent given sons, must be effect there is no room requires that sections * * * * for construction. In interpreting a to 65B.71 be adopted effect the follow- statute, a court must the language construe ing purposes: so as legislative to effectuate the intent.” (1) To relieve severe economic Telephone Mankato Citizens Co. v. Commis- uncompensated tress of victims of auto- Taxation, sioner of 275 Minn. *; mobile accidents (1966) (citations omitted). encourage appropriate To medical rehabilitation treatment legislature clearly intended some automobile accident victim loading and unloading injuries to be com- *4 pensable limiting under the To correct imbalances Act. and abuses injuries by operation specifying acci- occur- automobile ring dent while a liability system tort into or from a motor vehicle arise (emphasis added). out of the “maintenance and use of a motor vehicle,” the legislature has eliminated many injuries covered compen- KELLEY, J., no consid- took sation other schemes. eration or decision this matter. injuries While the Schroedl WAHL, (dissenting Justice in part). were standard automobile accident agree I majority opinion with the irrational, injury, neither were they bizarre encompassed within happenings in view of use of the respectfully No-Fault Act but must As a matter of law these arose out sent from holding of the use of a and are motor vehicle com- Galle and encompassed. pensable under the Minnesota No-Fault clear- Act. sets ly “[mjaintenance out that * motor vehicle does not include con- TODD, (dissenting Justice in part). duct the course join I in the dissent Justice Wahl. the vehicle unless conduct occurs while SCOTT, (dissenting part). Justice added.) it.” (Emphasis Recovery was de- in Krupenny nied because the join in I the dissent Justice Wahl. not occupying, alighting from or truck when the dumpster fell. Krupenny v. West Mutual Insurance Here, N.W.2d 133 “occupying” both

their trucks their occurred.

To hold that those did not arise out