Case Title: MacRUNNEL v. NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY

Citation: 153 N.W.2d 686

Docket Number: 

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 1967-10-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
153 N.W.2d 686 (1967) Charles MacRUNNEL, Appellant, v. NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. No. 40559. Supreme Court of Minnesota. October 27, 1967. Rainer L. Weis and Ronald R. Frauenshuh, Paynesville, for appellant. Jerome E. Kline, Minneapolis, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The only issue in this case is whether the insurance policy which is the subject matter of this lawsuit is so ambiguous that the insured should be allowed to recover on the basis of the principle that ambiguities in insurance contracts are construed in favor of the insured.[1] Plaintiff, Charles MacRunnel, insured his commercial tractor-trailer combination with defendant, Northland Insurance Company. On June 2, 1965, a truck belonging to plaintiff was involved in an accident which gave rise to this litigation. At the *687 time of the accident, the trailer described in the policy was being repaired and a borrowed trailer was being used. Damages to the trailer were stipulated, and the present controversy concerns only whether coverage under the insurance policy includes a borrowed trailer used for commercial purposes. After a trial without a jury, plaintiff's action was dismissed on the merits. Plaintiff thereafter moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial, and he appealed from the order denying that motion. The claim for coverage by the insured is based upon Paragraph V of the Insuring Agreements: Paragraph 10 of the Conditions section of the policy defines automobile: We affirm the trial court's construction of the policy to exclude coverage of the borrowed trailer. Paragraph V specifically defines "private passenger automobile" in terms plainly excluding a borrowed trailer used for commercial purposes.[2] The terms of this insurance policy, we understand, are not unique, but rather standard. We should not, by construction of language defining an insured risk, increase the risk for which the insured and the insurer contracted.[3] Affirmed. [1] Weum v. Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Assn., 237 Minn. 89, 54 N.W.2d 20; Allied Mutual Cas. Co. v. Askerud, 254 Minn. 156, 94 N.W.2d 534. [2] There is evidence in the record that defendant insurance company had available a special endorsement which would have provided coverage for borrowed commercial vehicles at an additional premium. [3] Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 104 N.W.2d 19; Simon v. Milwaukee Auto. Mutual Ins. Co., 262 Minn. 378, 115 N.W.2d 40.