the district court which found that the only vehicle liability coverage provided by great west did not obligate them to provide permissive user coverage to michael sally  for an accident that occurred in two thousand and twelve there are two primary legal issues before the court one is whether the compulsory liability  statutes of the minnesota no fault act specifically section sixty five b forty eight subdivision one and sixty five b forty nine subdivision thirty one require  review in this case is and i thought i did dress i think i think the best way to address the st issue of that being whether the requires permissive liability coverage for have and some buddies from minnesota we're going to go hunting and we go i want to go hunting out the black hills in south dakota and so my my s u v that we're taking on the trip is insured with car accident crashes into a pool and injures everybody in the car including myself now with regard to all the injury claims all the passengers are going to make injury claims against him for negligence in the operation of the vehicle and the question then would be whether my american family policy whether the own vehicle liability coverage of my policy would have to extend permissive use or coverage t that would they would not have to provide coverage to tim for that accident for two reasons that i will discuss subsequently but those two reasons are on the vehicle owner that being me had no tort liability for the accident because south dakota unlike minnesota is not one of the twelve jurisdictions in the country that have a curious liability for vehicle owners and so great w contends that because there was no vicarious liability on the part of myself of us in this hypothetical that they would not the american family would not have to provide him coverage liability coverage their regardless of where the action occurs in the united states and also in canada so whatever coverages are mandated by the no fault act doesn't matter where the accident occurs and that's number one the nd thing i would point to is just coverage was and that was in the mire versus illinois farms case that i cited in the briefs where the court said quote liability insurance is purchased by an owner of a vehicle to protect passengers in that vehicle from the negligent driving of the owner or another driving the vehicle council preps you're getting to this but in your hypothetical jim is clearly operating the vehicle and in this case acknowledged in their discovery responses that the injuries or arose out of the maintenance or use be involved in my tractor trailer and so so he was so he was operating the tractor trailer correct loading a loading a loading a tractor trailer is an operation a vehicle of a vehicle just as driving a vehicle that was liability coverage is for the purpose of it is for passengers who are injured by other the driver of the vehicle owner or anyone else that might be driving to be rd the no fault act has always required that a policy of insurance on a on the owner vehicle has to insure against losses arising out of the maintenance operation or use of a motor vehicle which occurred in this nine subdivision thirty one the minnesota supreme court has determined and interpreted that to require that liability coverage must follow the vehicle regardless of who's who's using it up running it it's a coverage that is tied to the vehicle and has to follow the vehicle and that's the low back case and the would this case that both cite that proposition so between those two principles that a motor vehicle policy has to insure injuries arising out of the use of a vehicle and that the coverage has to follow the vehicle that courts have held in numerous cases apparent it's clear that in this hypothetical that american family would be required to extend permissive liability coverage to tim and in our case for the court that great west is similarly obligated to provide permissive liability coverage to selly for injuries arising out of the use of the in some way tractor trailer the nd issue major issue in the case is what happens then when a policy omits coverage that is required by botany and i represent right west casualty company mr decker's request to have the moving property provision found in the great west policy declared void and on and forcible must be denied the terms of the great west insurance policy like any contract must be applied and interpreted and forced as they are written that contract sets out right west obligations so long as the policy does not  coverage required by the law or violate any statutes and this provision does not violate the law or any statute now in this case k w trucking owned the trailer and as required by sixty five b point forty eight and sixty five b point forty nine dollars subdivision thirty one dollars k w trucking as the owner carried insurance on that trailer and that insurance  included liability coverage that well exceeded the statutory limits so the question is when does that policy have to provide liability coverage and to whom and the answers to that question are really found in a statute that mr decker really wants to ignore and that is sixty five b point forty nine subdivision three to this statute unlike sixty five b point forty eight which talks about an onerous obligations sixty five enacted and consequently anytime you see the word insured used anywhere in the no fault act we can and we should go back to that definition and see well who isn't insured who under sixty five be point forty nine must insure driving down to sue falls you know there's an accident is it your position that he has not come yes most likely that would be our position you know you have to look at the definition of insured and get how that's used in the not fault act that insured definition clearly does not include permissive drivers or permissive users now minnesota used to have what is a traditional statute way back under the safety responsibility act it was required that a vehicle owners insure not only insure the person's name to the insurance policy but they also had to insure anyone who was permissibl using that vehicle that omnibus statute was repealed way back and approximately nine hundred and seventy four at the same time that the no fault act was being enacted that provision that fault act has never and i'll repeat never contained a statute requiring a policy issued to the owner extend coverage to a permissive user of the vehicle that is a correct statement of  there is no requirement that a vehicle owners ensure provide coverage for permissive users now so there is no requirement mr tele is not an insured if you look at a sixty five b point forty nine in the definition he's not entitled to coverage now that does not mean that there is good never going to be a liability coverage this brings us to the when you have to provide liability coverage and the cases and mr decker notes in his briefs and close the witness case they talk about that the no fault act did not alter the basic framework of liability law so what rema true is that you can have two situations generally where you're going to be liable you can be directly liable or you can be vicariously liable so in this case if k w trucking had somehow been directly at  provides that persons who are operating a vehicle with the consent of the owner will be deemed the agent of the owner if there is an accident so as a general rule if you know someone else's driving your vehicle with permission they're going to be your agent you're going to be vicariously liable for their negligence however in drafting that statute and this is true from way back before it was in the safety responsibility act and after it was moved into one  dollars that statute is limited to operation within the state so within the state of minnesota so clearly the legislature does recognize that there's going to be different coverage depending on if you're in minnesota or if you're outside of minnesota even then no fault act recognizes that you're not going to have to have a you know forceful coverage for everyone everywhere sixty five dollars be point forty two dollars for example which talks about the purposes of the no fault act it talks about protecting uncompensated persons for accidents in the state and that's in the state of minnesota even sixty five dollars a point forty six dollars which talks about when are when it's someone entitled to basic economic loss benefits i mean it distinguishes between accidents happening in minnesota and accidents happening out of state so there is nothing that says you have to provide coverage to everyone everywhere and in every circumstance explain how they can find that there is any such obligation they certainly can't point to anywhere within the actual statute one importantly however none of those cases addressed the scope of any supposed on new best coverage or promise of user coverage and perhaps more importantly none of them say that this coverage if it even has to be provided and we believe it does not none of them say it has to be unlimited coverage that you can never have any sort of restrictions and in fact the minnesota supreme court ha the opposite the minnesota supreme court including in the low back case that we discussed in our materials explains that the primary purpose of the no fault act is to provide st party benefits as opposed t party benefits and that's what we're talking about liability coverage just rd party benefits and the minnesota supreme court has explained because the focus is on st party benefits it'll be a lot harder to have any restrictions on st party coverage but you can have some restrictions on rd party coverage in the law but case the minnesota supreme court said quote while the no fault act requires an automobile insurance policy to include rd party liability coverage there is nothing in the no fault act either explicit or implicit that prohibits insurance companies from including some restrictions on liability coverage in their contracts and that's all that great west of here and i think it's worth noting that even though st party benefits are the focus of the act the act as it's written actually it limits the circumstances in which even st party benefits are permitted in a moving property situation in a loading or unloading situation so even unlimited coverage is not required in that context so certainly it seems reasonable that having some restrictions with respect to moving property and the rd party benefit side would be entirely permissible and there's just a real practical reason for having this provision the not act applies to any of us who have an auto in minnesota and so let's just say i don't you probably don't let in minnesota but let's say your honour's decided this weekend you want to do a project and you go to your local home hardware store nearby some lumber any player car around the back the nice hardware store employee with your permission starts loading the lumber into your vehicle and it doesn't do a very good job some lumber falls out it hurts you it hurts someone else walking by under mr decker's argument your insurance policy the premiums that you paid would have to provide liability coverage for that employees negligence even though you didn't control that employee you didn't hire that employee you didn't train that employee he's just loading wood into your car now you take that scenario and he moved into the commercial vehicle context and that becomes very real because commercial vehicles commercial trailers are being loaded and unloaded all the time sometimes multiple times a day so you have trailers that back up to a warehouse in a warehouse negligent mumbling property there is coverage there but we're not going to provide coverage to the world because they cannot without that limitation the risk obviously would increase substantially and we all know what that means premiums will go up and you're probably going to motor carriers and owner operators who just cannot pay those increased premiums and will probably be driven out of business so there's a real practical reason for having this provision in those scenarios there should be coverage that warehouse should have liability coverage for its employee who's moving property into or out of a vehicle and in this case mr sall have had liability coverage he acknowledges that he should have had coverage on fortunately had been cancelled and he chose to continue doing this operation knowing he did not have that coverage in place if he did not the hay broker that hired him should have had liability insurance the fact that they fail to have liability insurance in place does not make the great west provision invalid the great west provision is entirely consistent with  facts act and the cases that interpret  answered the motion should also be denied however because it's untimely if mr decker really thought that these issues required to be addressed by the minnesota supreme court he should have brought that motion to certify before the district court before the motions for summary judgment before the unfavorable summary judgment ruling and before the appeal in the briefs submitted to this court so unless there are any questions we ask you to from the district court's decision but deny the motion  certify i'd like to address their argument that mister shelley or tim in the hypothetical is not entitled to coverage because they're and insured under sixty five b forty three subdivision five hundred and sixty five b forty three subdivision five only applies to the portable coverage is that are mandated by the no fault act that's your no fault coverage you're an under insured and your uninsured coverage and since two thousand and two the amendment to non owned vehicle liability coverage no case in minnesota has ever that that provision directs can restrict permissive use or liability coverage if that was the case if that was actually the case any body that issues any carrier that issues a business out a policy in the state of minnesota i would not have to afford coverage for most of users any promise of users in the state of minnesota because the permissive user is not the spouse or resident relative of the named insured business that would require the court to overrule four or five different cases that have been decided by the minnesota supreme court and court of appeals including hurt including mcclain including agency ran a car and others that i cited in in the brief that it there no logical sense whatsoever the minnesota supreme court in the witness case specifically sa that own vehicle liability coverage extends to permissive users period and that's it i don't it's as clear as it it can be secondly even assuming even if that sixty five