The district court ruled that the Progressive provisions violated the no-fault act, and Progressive must provide liability coverage to Enyart. Must an insurer provide residual liability coverage to resident relatives, as defined under Minn. Stat. In reviewing a summary judgment, the appellate court will address whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in applying the law. The facts in this case are undisputed, and the issue of whether coverage exists is a question of law. See Fallon McElligott, Inc. v. Seaboard Sur.
Appellate courts apply the general principles of contract interpretation to insurance policies.
Lobeck v. State Farm Mut. If the contract is clear and unambiguous, the language is given its usual meaning. The policy must be construed as a whole. The coverage provided by the insurance policy must comply with the provisions of the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, regardless of whether the contract provides otherwise. In recognition of this requirement, the policy here provides that if any of its terms conflict with the statute, they will be amended to conform.