North River Insurance Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co.
1984 Minn. LEXIS 1281, 346 N.W.2d 109 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trailer becomes a 'motor vehicle' under Minnesota's No-Fault Act when it is connected to a truck, and an injury sustained while on or alighting from such a stationary trailer arises from the 'use of a motor vehicle' if the vehicle is an active accessory to the injury. Ambiguous or conflicting terms in insurance policies regarding trailer use and business purposes must be construed against the insurer to provide coverage.
Facts:
- Alfred H. Dressen owned a farm and a four-wheel agricultural trailer.
- Dressen had an agreement with a custom harvester which required him to provide a vehicle to transport the harvested grain.
- To fulfill this agreement, Dressen borrowed a pickup truck from Raymond Appel.
- On Dressen's farm, the agricultural trailer was attached to Appel's pickup truck via a 'goose-neck hitch'.
- While the connected truck and trailer were parked, Allen H. Brown was on the farm helping with the harvest.
- Brown was injured when he fell either while standing on the trailer attempting to remove a tarpaulin or while attempting to get down from the trailer.
Procedural Posture:
- Allen H. Brown sued Alfred H. Dressen in Lincoln County trial court for negligence and breach of contract.
- North River Insurance Company, Dressen's farm liability insurer, initially accepted the defense.
- North River then tendered the defense to Dairyland Insurance Company, the insurer of the truck, but Dairyland declined coverage.
- North River filed a declaratory judgment action in district court against Dairyland.
- North River amended its complaint to add Great Central Insurance Company, Dressen's personal vehicle insurer, as a defendant.
- Dairyland and Great Central both filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Dairyland, finding no coverage.
- The trial court denied Great Central's motion as to one policy (#38257) but granted it as to another (#38256).
- Great Central, the appellant, appealed the finding of coverage under its policy #38257 to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
- North River, the respondent, sought review of the dismissal of its claims against Dairyland and against Great Central's policy #38256.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury sustained while working on a stationary agricultural trailer attached to a pickup truck arise out of the 'use of a motor vehicle' under Minnesota's No-Fault Act, thereby triggering coverage under automobile insurance policies that contain ambiguous or conflicting terms regarding trailers and business use?
Opinions:
Majority - Todd, Justice.
Yes, the injury arises out of the use of a motor vehicle, and the ambiguous policies must be construed to provide coverage. Under Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, a trailer becomes a 'motor vehicle' when it is connected to another motor vehicle, which Dressen's trailer was. Brown's injury arose from the 'use' of this motor vehicle because there was a sufficient causal connection; the vehicle was more than the mere situs of the injury, it was an 'active accessory.' Brown was injured by a part of the vehicle (the tarpaulin) or while alighting from it, similar to the covered injury in Galle v. Excalibur Ins. Co. The court found that the policies from both Great Central and Dairyland contained ambiguous and conflicting clauses regarding trailer coverage and business use exclusions. For example, Great Central's policy used an undefined term, 'another type automobile,' and Dairyland's policy contained one clause excluding commercial trailer use while another treated a truck and attached trailer as a single automobile. Because ambiguities in insurance contracts are construed against the insurer, all policies were found to provide coverage for Dressen's liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of Minnesota's No-Fault Act by establishing that a trailer's legal status as a 'motor vehicle' is triggered by its physical connection to a vehicle, not by its movement. It reinforces the 'active accessory' test for determining when an injury 'arises out of the use' of a vehicle, distinguishing between injuries caused by the vehicle itself versus those merely occurring on it. This broad interpretation expands potential coverage for incidents involving stationary but connected vehicles and puts the onus on insurers to draft clear, unambiguous exclusions for specialized equipment and business uses to avoid unintended liability.
