# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 12 89

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Brad le y Lars on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Nati on wid e Agr ib us in es s In su ran ce Co m pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 20 , 20 13 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

15 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.
Brad le y Lars on ap pe al s the dis tr ic t co ur t’ s ad ve rs e gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t 1

res pe ct in g th e ti m el in es s o f hi s l aws ui t ag ai ns t Nati on wid e Agr ib us in es s In su ran ce

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard H. Ky le
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.Co m

pa ny (Nat io nwi d e ) se ek in g co ve rag e un de r Lars on ’s em pl oyer’s un de rin su red

m ot or is t (UIM ) po li cy

wit h Nat io nwi de

. W e aff irm. 2

I. BACKGRO UND
A. Col li si on an d Under ly in g L aw su it On May 9, 20 07
, Ro be rt Tho m ps on was ha ul in g li qu id fert il iz er in ru ral

so ut he rn Mi nn es ot a whe n he dr ov e ov er rai lro ad tra ck s. Sh or tl y aft er cl eari ng th e
tra ck s, Tho m

ps o n ch eck ed th e co nt ai nm en t ta nk in hi s m irr or an d no ti ced it was le ak in g fert il iz er. Tho m ps on t h e n st op pe d hi s tru ck an d cal le d Tim ot hy Gud al
, Tho m ps on ’s em pl oyer an d th e tru ck ’s own er, who arra nge d to ha ve co unt y em plo y ees
sp read san d o ve r th e fer ti li zer a nd pl ace wa rn in g fl ag s at bo th en ds of t he sp il l.

Late r th at da y , Lars on was dr iv in g a gr ai n tru ck fo r hi s em pl oyer, Farm ers Co op erat iv e Co m

pa ny (Far m ers ). Lars on ap pr oa ch ed th e sa m e rai lro ad tra ck s fro m th e op po si te di rect io n Tho m ps on ha d be en tra ve li ng an d at th e sa m e ti m e a t r a in

ap pr oa ch ed th e cro ss in g. As Lars on pa ss ed ov er th e st re tc h of ro ad co ve red by fert il iz er an d s an d, h e was un ab le to st op be fo re co ll id in g wi th th e tr ai n.

On May 5, 20 09
, Lars on se rv ed Tho m ps on wit h a st at e co ur t su m m on s an d

co m pl ai nt , al le gi ng Tho m

ps on ’s ne gl ig en ce cau se d ov er $2 m il li on in da m ag es

. On 3
Ju ne 16 , 2 00 9, Lars on fil ed th e su mm o n s a nd co m pl ai nt in Mi nn es ot a st at e di st ric t

co ur t. Lars on la te r am en de d hi s co m pl ai nt to ad d Gud al as a de fen da nt

. In Feb ru ary 20 12 , Larso n s et tl ed wit h Th om ps on an d Gu da l fo r $5 00 ,00 0.

W e h av e ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. 2

Lars on ’s or ig in al co m

pl ai nt in cl ud ed ad dit ion al de fe ndan ts no t rel ev an t to th is 3
ap pe al

.
-2

-B. Sui t Aga in st Nati on w id e

On May 30
, 20 12
, Lars on , a res id en t of Min ne so ta , fil ed th is di ve rs it y su it in th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a ag ai ns t Nati on wid e, an Io wa co rp or at io n wit h it s pr in ci pa l pl ace of bu si ne ss ou ts id e Mi nn es ot a. See 2 8 U

. S .C. § 13 32 (a). Lars on al le ge d he

was “ an in su red ” un de r an Io wa in su ran ce po li cy Farm ers ob ta in ed fro m Nati on wid e. The po li cy in cl ud ed UIM co ve rag e fo r co ve red ve hi cl es “ li cen se d or pr in ci pa ll y
ga rag ed in

. . . Io wa.” The po li cy co ve red pa y m en ts fo r cert ai n in ju r i e s t o i n su red

pa rti es cau se d by th e own er o r o p e r a t o r of an un in su red or un de rin su red ve hi cl e. Para gr a p h E.3.b . o f th e UIM en do rs em en t (ti m el in es s co nd it io n) li m it ed th e pe rio d in whi ch an in su red co ul d b rin g s ui t as fol lo ws:

b. Any le ga l act io n ag ai ns t u s u n d e r th is Co ve rag e Fo rm m us t be br ou gh t wit hi n two y ears aft er th e da te of th e “ acci de nt ”. Howev er, th is Para gr ap h 3.b

. do es no t ap pl y i f, wit hi n two y ears aft er th e da te of th e

“ acci de nt ”, th e “ in su red ” ha s fil ed an act io n fo r “ bo di ly in jury” ag ai ns t th e own er or op erat or of a ve hi cl e de sc rib ed in Para gr ap h b. of th e de fin it io n o f “ un in su red m ot or ve hi cl e”, an d s uc h a ct io n i s: 4

(1 ) Fil ed in a co ur t o f co m pe te nt juri sd ic ti on ; an d

(2 ) Not ba rred by the ap pl ic ab le st at e st at ut e o f li m it at io ns

.

In th e ev en t th at th e two y ear ti m e li m it at io n id en ti fie d in th is co nd it io n do es no t ap pl y , th e ap pl ic ab le st at e st at ut e of li m it at io ns wil l go ve rn le ga l ac ti on ag ai ns t u s u nd er t hi s C ov erag e Fo rm

.

Bo il ed do wn, th e ti m el in es s co nd it io n pr ov id ed (1 ) a ge ne ral ru le r e q u i r i ng su it be

“ br ou gh t” ag ai ns t Nati on wid e wit hi n two y ears of th e acci de nt , wit h (2 ) an ex cep ti on

The UIM en do rs em en t de fin ed th e ph ras e “ un in s u r e d m ot or ve hi cl e” as a 4

m ot or ve hi cl e “ fo r whi ch th e su m of a ll li ab il it y

bo nd s o r po li ci es at t he ti m e of th e ‘accid en t’ do no t pr ov id e at le as t th e am ou nt an ‘ins ur ed ’ is le ga ll y en ti tl ed to reco ve r
as da m ag es res ul ti ng fro m ‘ bo di ly inju ry ’ cau se d b y th e ‘accid en t.’”

-3

-al lo win g th e in su red to us e th e “ ap pl ic ab le st at e st at ut e of li m it at io ns ” as th e m eas ur e

of ti m el in es s if th e in su red ha d “ fil ed an act io n” “ in a co ur t of co m pe te nt juri sd ic ti on ”
ag ai ns t t he un de rin su red own er o r op erat or wit hi n t wo years o f th e acc id en t.

On Sept em

be r 24
, 20 12
, Nati on wid e m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, argu in g,

am on g o th er t hi ng s, t he su it was un ti m el y

. The di st ric t co ur t g ran te d Nat io nwi de ’s

m ot io n, co nc lu di ng Lars on ’s su it was un ti m el y un de r th e te rm s of th e p o li cy

. The di st ric t co ur t fir st fo un d th at Lars on ha d n o t met t he ti m el in es s co nd it io n’s ge ne ral

two -y ear li m it be cau se hi s act io n ag ai ns t Nati on wid e, fil ed May 30
, 20 12
, cam e m or e th an two y ears aft er th e May 9, 20 07
, acci de nt

. The di st ric t co ur t th en fo un d th e

ex cep ti on in ap pl ic ab le be cau se Lars on ha d no t fil ed hi s co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t Tho m

ps on in a co ur t un ti l Ju ne 16
, 20 09
, mo r e t h a n t w o y ears aft er th e acci de nt

. Tho ug h
Lars on ’s May 5, 20 09
, se rv ic e of p r oc es s un de r Mi nn es ot a la w co m m en ced th e la wsu i t wit hi n th e two -y ear pe rio d, se e Mi nn

. R. Ci v. P. 3.0 1( a) (“ A ci vi l act io n is

co m m en ced ag ai ns t each de fen d a n t

. . . whe n th e su m m on s is se rv ed up on th at de fen da nt .”), th e di st ric t co ur t reas on ed th e po li cy un am bi gu ou sl y refe rs to fil in g in

a c ou rt rat he r th an co m

m en ci ng a la wsu it . Larso n t im el y ap pe al ed

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N
A. Appl ic ab le La w an d Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w The pa rti es ag ree Mi nn es ot a su bs ta nt iv e la w go ve rn s th is di ve rs it y cas e. See Erie R. Co

. v. Tom

pk in s, 30 4 U.S. 64
, 78 (1 93 8)

. “ W e m us t pr ed ic t ho w th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi nn es ot a wou ld ru le
, an d w e fo ll ow de ci si on s of th e in te rm ed ia te st at e

co ur t whe n th ey are th e be st ev id en ce of Mi nn es ot a la w.” Fri ed be rg v. Ch ub b & So n, In c., 69 1 F.3 d 94 8, 95 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, “ vi ewin g th e reco rd m os t fav o r a b l y t o th e no nm ov in g pa rty

an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es fo r th at pa rty.” Mu nr oe v. Co nt ’l W

. In s. Co
., 73 5 F.3 d 7 8 3
, 78 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). W e al so rev ie w “ de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s

co ns tru ct io n o f an in su ran ce p ol ic y an d i nt erp ret at io n o f st at e la w.” Id.

-4

-B. Mea ni ng of “ Fil ed”

Th e cru x of th is ap pe al is th e ex cep ti on in th e po li cy ’s ti m el in es s co nd it io n, whi ch on ly ap pl ie s if we co nc lu de La rs on “ ha s fil ed an act io n fo r ‘bod il y in jury’

ag ai ns t th e own er or o p e r a t o r ” of an un de rin su red ve hi cl e “ in a co ur t of co m pe te nt juri sd ic ti on ” “ wit hi n two y ears aft er

. . . th e ‘accid en t.’” La r s o n arg ue s th e te rm

“ fil ed ” a s u s e d in th e ti m el in es s ex cep ti on reas on ab ly sh ou ld be read to req ui re

“ co m m en cem en t” wit hi n th e two -y ear pe rio d, whi ch Lars on di d by hi s May 5, 20 09
,
se rv ic e of pr oc es s. See Mi nn

. R. Ci v. P. 3.0 1( a). If th is in te rp ret at io n is reas on ab le
, 5
Lars on m ai nt ai ns , th e do ct rin e of co nt r a p r o f e re nt em req ui res us to co ns tru e th e
po li cy ag ai ns t Nat io nwi de an d i n Lar so n’s fa vo r.

In Mi nn es ot a, th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of an un am bi gu ou s in su ran ce po li cy co nt ro ls it s l e g a l e f

fect
, whe reas an am

bi gu ou s po li cy te rm is co ns tru ed st ric tl y ag ai ns t th e in su rer. See Eng ’g & Co ns tr. In no va ti on s, In c. v. L.H. Bo ld uc Co
., 82 5 N.W .2d 69 5, 70 4- 05 (Mi nn

. 20 13 ). Am bi gu it y ex is ts whe re th e po li cy ’s la ng ua ge is “ ‘sus cep ti bl e
to two or m or e reas on ab le in te rp ret at io ns .’ ” Id . at 7 05 (qu ot in g C arl so n v . All st at e In s. Co
., 74 9 N.W .2d 41
, 45 (Mi nn

. 20 08 )). In m ak in g th at de te rm in at io n, th e po li cy

“ ‘[p ]r o v i s i o n s

. . . are to be in te rp ret ed acco rd in g to bo th pl ai n, or di na ry se ns e an d wha t a reas on ab l e p e r s o n in th e po si ti on of th e in su red wou ld ha ve un de rs to od th e

wor ds to m ean .’ ” Mi dwe st Fam il y Mu t

. I n s

. C o. v. W ol te rs , 8 31 N.W .2d 62 8, 63 6 (Mi nn

. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Farm ers Hom e Mu t. In s. Co

. v. Lil l, 33 2 N.W .2d 63 5, 63 7 (Mi nn

. 19 83 )). Thi s req ui res th at we “ no t co ns tru e in di vi du al w o r d s o r ph ras es in in su ran ce po li ci es in is ol at io n,” bu t in st ead “ read th e po li cy as a who le .” Bo ld uc , 82 5
N.W .2d at 70 6. W e al so refr ai n fro m in te rp ret in g th e po li cy in a way th at ren de rs an y
pr ov is io n m ean in gl es s. See id . at 7 05

.

Nati on wid e co nt en ds Lars on for fei te d t hi s ambig ui ty argu m en t b y fai li ng to 5 rai se it in th e di st ric t co ur t. In ou r rev ie w of th e reco rd
, Lars on su ffi ci en tl y rai se d th e

am bi gu it y arg um en t d ur in g t he su m m ary jud gm en t h eari ng

. -5

-1. Defi ni tio ns of “ Fil ed”

Dict io na rie s, as Lars on no te s, de fin e th e v e r b “fi le ” as ha vi ng m ul ti pl e

m ean in gs , in c l u d i n g (1 ) th e de li ve ry of a le ga l do cu m en t to th e co ur t, an d (2 ) th e

co m m en cem en t or in it ia ti on of a la wsu it

. See, e.g ., Bl ack ’s Law Dict io na ry 66 0 (8 th ed

. 20 04 ) (in cl ud in g in it s de fin it io ns : “ [t]o de li ve r a le ga l do cu m en t to th e co ur t cl erk

or reco rd cu st od ia n fo r pl acement in to th e of fic ia l reco rd ,” a n d “ [t]o co mmenc e a l a w s u i t

. ” ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ) ; F i l e , M e r r i a m

- W e b s t e r , ht tp :/ /www.m erri am -web st er.co m /d i ct io na ry

/fi le ? (la st vi si te d Ja n. 3, 20 14 ) (in cl ud in g i n i ts de fin it io ns : “ to pl ace am on g of fic ia l reco rd s as pre sc rib ed by law”

an d “ to in it ia te (as a le ga l ac ti on ) th ro ug h p ro pe r fo rm al pro ced ur e”).

By Lars on ’s reas on in g, th es e ge ne ral de fi nit ion s al low us to read “ co m m en ced ” whe re th e po li cy pr ov is io n us es “ fil ed .” Co m m en cem en t, in tu rn , was acco m pl is he d by se rv ic e un de r sp eci fic ap pl ic at io n of Mi nn es ot a’s pr oc ed ur al ru le s. See Mi nn

. R. Ci v. P. 3.0 1( a). W he n vi ewed in is ol at io n, th is read in g ap pe ars reas on ab le

. See, e.g ., Fed

. Lan d Ban k of St

. Pau l v. Ben ne tt , 44 5 N.W .2d 27 9, 28 1 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 19 89 ) (co nc lu di ng th e la ng ua ge “ fil in g a se pa rat e act io n” was am bi gu ou s as us ed in Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 2.3 0, su bd

. 5( a) (1 98 8 ) )

. Nev ert he le ss , a te rm ’s am bi gu it y can no t be de fin it iv el y es ta bl is he d by t he pa ge s of a di ct io na ry be cau se “ [t]he se ns e of a wor d de pe nd s on ho w it is be in g us ed .” Bd

. of Reg en ts of Uni v. of Mi nn

. v. Ro y al In s. Co

. of Am

. , 5 1 7 N

. W. 2 d 88 8, 89 2 (Mi nn

. 19 94 ) (“ Bec au se a wor d ha s m or e th an on e

m ean in g d oe s n ot m ean it is am bi gu ou s.”)

.

2. Con tex t App lying fu nd am en ta l pr in ci pl es of Mi nn es ot a co nt ract in te rp ret at io n la w, we

a g a i n r e f eren ce th at “ we do no t co ns tru e in di vi du al wor ds or ph ras es in in su ran c e
po li ci es in is ol at io n,” bu t in st ead “ read th e po li cy as a who le .” Bo ld uc , 82 5 N.W .2d

at 70 6. “ [O]nly if m or e th an on e m ean in g ap pl ie s wit hi n th at co nt ex t do es am bi gu it y ari se .” Ro y al Ins . Co., 5 17 N.W .2d at 8 92 . Here, co nt ex t p ro ve s d eci si ve

.

-6

-Fi rs t, we no te th e po li cy ’s ti m el in es s ex cep ti on us es th e wor d “ fil ed ” a se co nd

ti m e. The ex cep ti on re q u i r e s t ha t th e in su red ’s act io n be “ [f]il ed in a co ur t of

co m pe te nt juri sd ic ti on .” (Em ph as is ad de d)

. The ex cep ti o n , i n effe ct , r eq ui res th at th e in su red ’s su it be “

fi le d in a co ur t of co mpe te nt ju ri sd ic ti on ” “ wit hi n two y ears of th e acci de nt .” (Em

ph as is ad de d)

. See Aut o- Owner s In s. Co

. v. Seco nd Ch an ce In vs ., LLC, 82 7 N.W .2d 76 6, 77 2 (Mi nn

. 20 13 ) (“ W he n th e sa m e la ng ua ge is u s e d th ro ug ho ut a st at ut e, we pr es um e ‘tha t it is us ed wit h th e sa m e m ean i n g u n t i l th e

c o nt rary is sh own .’ ” (q uo ti ng Ch ris tg au v. W oo dl awn Cem et ery Ass ’n, 29 3 N.W. 61 9, 62 4 (Mi nn . 1 94 0) ) ) ; se e al so 2 St ev en Pl it t et al ., C ou ch on In su ran ce § 22 :4 2 (3 d ed

. 20 13 ) (“ An ex pr es si on to whi ch a pl ai n m ean in g is at ta ch ed in on e pa rt of an in st ru m en t is he ld to h a v e t h e sa m e m ean in g in ot he r pa rts of th e sa m e in st ru m en t

un le ss a co nt rary pu rp os e pl ai nl y ap pe ars .”). And by sp eci fy in g th e fil in g m us t be “ in

a c o u r t , ” t he po li cy ex pr es sl y an d un am bi gu ou sl y ad op ts th e fil in g act of in it ia ti ng

su ch act io n in a co ur t , rat he r th an si m pl y an no un ci ng a la wsu it to th e op po si ng pa rty.

Seco nd
, im m ed ia te ly pr eced in g th e ex cep ti on is th e po li cy ’s m or e ge ne ral ru le fo r ti m el in es s, whi ch st at es , “ Any le ga l acti on ag ai ns t us un de r th is Co ve rag e Fo rm

m us t be br ou gh t wit hi n two y ears aft er th e da te of th e ‘accid en t.’” (Em ph as is ad de d)

. The two se nt en ces —t he ge ne ral ti m el in es s ru le an d it s ex cep ti on —u se di ffer en t l a n g u a ge as be twee n th e req ui red act s: wit hi n two y ears , Lars on m us t ha ve ei th e r

“ br ou gh t” an act io n ag ai ns t Nati on wid e or “ fil ed ” an act io n ag ai ns t th e un de rin su red

ve hi cl e’s own er or op erat or

. To “ br in g an act io n” is a ge ne ric ph ras e, m ean in g “ [t]o

su e” an d “ [to ] in st it ut e le ga l p r o c e e d in gs ,” Bl ack ’s Law Dict io na ry 20 5 (8 th ed

. 20 04 ), an d whi ch Lars on ad m it s is co m m on ly us ed as a syno nym fo r th e act of

“ co m m en ci ng ” an act io n. Thi s co nt ras ti ng la ng ua ge be twee n su cces si ve se nt en ces 6

At or al arg um en t, Lars on ’s co un s e l r es po nd ed to a qu es ti on an d de cl ared : 6

“ ‘Brou gh t,’ I wou ld res pe ct fu ll y su bm it
, is a po te nt ia ll y am bi gu ou s te rm , bu t it s m os t

co mm on m ean in g wou ld be ‘an act io n was co m m en ced ,’ an d we di d th at in Mi nn es ot a by a ti m el y se rv ic e of pr oc es s.

. . . The be st arg um en t I can gi ve on be ha lf of m y cl ie nt is th at ‘bro ug ht ’ is a fu rth er su gg es ti on th at it ’s su it co m m en cem en t th at

-7

-ag ai n su gg es ts th e ex cep ti on in te nd s th e li te ral m ean in g of “ fil ed ” as op po se d to th e

ge ne r ic act of in it ia ti ng a la wsu it

. See Mau er v. Kirc he r, 58 7 N.W .2d 51 2, 51 4- 15 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 1 9 9 8 ) (fi nd in g di ffer en t la ng ua ge in ne arb y cl au se s ad dr es si ng

“ pa ral l el is su es ” ex pr es se d th e pa rti es ’ “ cl ear in te nt io n of crea ti ng di ffer en t

re q ui rem en ts ”); Tarac or

p, In c. v. NL In du s., In c., 73 F.3 d 73 8, 74 4 (7 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ [W] he n pa rti es to th e sa m e co nt ract us e su ch di ffer en t la ng ua ge to ad dr es s pa ral le l is su es

. . . , it is r e a s o n a b l e t o in fer th at th ey in te nd th is la ng ua ge to m ean di ffer en t th in gs .”); cf. Dereje v. St at e, 83 7 N.W .2d 71 4, 72 0 (Mi nn

. 20 13 ) (“ [W] he n di ffer en t

wor ds [in a co ur t rul e] are us ed in th e sa m e co nt ex t, we as su m e th at th e wor ds ha ve di ffer en t m ean in gs .”).

W e are un co nv in ced by Lars on ’s p ro po si ti on th at Nati on wid e req ui res fil in g

an act io n ag ai ns t th e own er or o p e r a t o r fo r th e so le pu rp os e of pr es erv in g Nati on wid e’s s u b r o g at io n rig ht s. As Lars on ’s pr op os al go es , th e two -y ear fil in g
req ui rem en t m e r e l y g ua ran te es a ti m el y su it ag ai ns t th e own er or op erat or , th ereb y

m ak in g th e act io n’s co mmenc emen t th e ke y da te

. Thi s arg um en t la ck s m eri t be cau se th e po li cy ex cep ti on al read y pr ot ect s Nati on wid e’s s u br og at io n rig ht s fro m

un ti m el in es s by req ui rin g in su bs ect io n (2 ) th at th e in su red ’s act io n ag ai ns t th e own er

or op erat or can no t be “ ba rred by th e ap pl ic ab le st at e st at ut e of li m it at io ns .” W e co ul d im ag in e ot he r pu rp os es fo r whi ch Nati on wid e wou ld req ui re a ti m el y fil in g wit h th e

c o u r t

. U n d e r th e pr ev io us pr oc ed ur al ru le s in Mi nn es ot a, fil in g in a co ur t was no t im m ed ia te ly ne ces sa ry , an d wi t h o u t a co nt ract req ui rin g fil in g in a co ur t, a la wsu it

co ul d l in ge r pr iv at el y

wit h n o g ua ran te e it wou ld ev er ap pe ar o n a co ur t’s d oc ke t. 7

th is is all ab ou t.”

Mi nn es ot a no w req ui res m os t cas es be fil ed in a co ur t wit hi n a y ear of se rv ic e. 7 See Mi nn

. R. Ci v. P. 5.0 4. Mi nn es ot a pr ev io us ly req ui red on ly th at th e co m pl ai nt be

“ fil ed wit h th e co ur t wit hi n a reas on ab le ti m e aft er se rv ic e.” Mi nn . R

. C i v

. P. 5.0 4 (2 01 2) (am en de d 20 13 ). Thi s so m et im es pe rm it te d fil in g y ears aft er a s ui t’s

co m m en cem en t. See, e.g ., Sch eff v. Sch eff, No. A05 -9 11
, 20 06 W L 10 73 04 5, at *4 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. Apr

. 25
, 20 06 ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (fi nd in g a “ m or e th an two -y ear de la y
-8

-Rec og ni zi ng we m us t vi ew th e la ng ua ge of a po li cy “ as a w h o l e ” a nd

“ ‘fast id io us ly gu ard ag ai ns t th e in vi ta ti on to crea te am bi gu it ie s wh ere n on e ex is t,’”
Bo ld uc , 82 5 N.W .2d at 70 6 (q uo ti ng Co lu m bi a Heig ht s Mo to rs , In c. v. All st at e In s. Co
., 27 5 N.W .2d 32
, 36 (Mi nn

. 19 79 )), we de ci de Lars on ’s in te rp ret at io n is

un reas on ab le in th at su ch a read in g rel ie s on se le ct ed di ct io na ry de fin it io ns whi ch are

co nt r a d i c te d by th e co nt ex t of th e po li cy

. In co nt ex t, th e po li cy ’s ti m el in es s 8

ex cep ti on ex pr es sl y es ta bl is he s “ fil ed ” m ean s “ in a co ur t,” an d it do es no t refe r to th e
ge ne ric ev en t of co m

m en ci ng le ga l pr oc eed in gs

. The po li cy pl ai nl y req ui res Lars on
to ha ve fil ed hi s act io n “ in a co ur t of co m pe te nt juri sd ic ti on ” wit hi n two y ears of th e

un de rlyin g a cci de nt , a co nd it io n wh ic h was no t s at is fie d h ere.

II I. CONCLUSI ON
Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e wel l-r eas on ed de ci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

be twee n s erv ic e an d fi li ng of t he su m m on s an d p et it io n was no t u nr eas on ab le ”).

In reac hi ng th is co nc lu si on , we do no t ig no re Be nn et t, wh ere t he Mi nn es ot a 8 Co ur t of App eal s co nc lu de d a st at e st at ut e, se e Mi nn

. St at

. § 5 8 2.3 0, su bd

. 5( a) (1 98 8)
, was am

bi gu ou s in it s us e of th e la ng ua ge “ fil in g a se pa rat e act io n.” Ben ne tt , 44 5 N.W .2d a t 2 8 0

. Th e reas on in g of Ben ne tt is no t pe rs ua si ve he re be cau se ou r in te rp ret at io n m

us t co ns id er th e wor ds “ as a who le ” wit hi n th e un iq ue co nt ex t of th e Nati on wid e po li cy

. Bo ld uc , 82 5 N.W .2d at 70 6; se e al so Ro y al In s. Co
., 51 7 N.W .2d at 89 2.

-9

-