This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. Considered and decided by Kalitowski , Presiding Judge, Randall , Judge, and Crippen , Judge.
Appellants claim coverage under the surplus lines commercial property policy in question.
Appellants challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment to respondent and denial of partial summary judgment to appellants. Appellants argue the policy, as it relates to the geographical scope of coverage, is ambiguous, and coverage should be based on appellants' reasonable expectations. For the next three years, Schellenberg continued to purchase Northland insurance policies through Ham. In mid-July 1997, Schellenberg telephoned Ham to discuss moving his business to Minnesota. Schellenberg stated Ham never got back to him regarding coverage under the Northland policy.