Title: Toomey v. Krone
Citation: 306 N.W.2d 549
Docket Number: 51686
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: March 6, 1981

306 N.W.2d 549 (1981) Nancy L. TOOMEY, a Minor Child, by Violet Burtson, her Mother and Natural Guardian, and Violet Burtson, Individually, Appellants, v. Brian KRONE, Defendant, Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, Respondent. No. 51686. Supreme Court of Minnesota. March 6, 1981. Rehearing Denied April 27, 1981. Engebretson &amp; Ulleberg, St. Paul, for appellants. Rider, Bennett, Egan &amp; Arundel and Lewis A. Remele, Minneapolis, for respondent. Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument. SCOTT, Justice. This appeal is taken from an order of the Anoka County District Court. In ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that an insurance policy which excluded liability coverage to an insured's relatives if they owned their own vehicles, regardless of whether those vehicles were insured, did not violate Minnesota law. We affirm. The relevant policy provisions are as follows: (Emphasis added.) For purposes of summary judgment the parties stipulated to the facts, as follows: This court has recently decided a similar issue involving no-fault coverage in Iverson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 295 N.W.2d 573 (Minn.1980). In that case the widow of a man killed in an automobile accident sought basic economic loss benefits under an automobile policy issued to decedent. The company denied coverage on the basis of a policy exclusion. We held that the policy exclusion, which precluded coverage for an insured if injured while operating an owned but uninsured vehicle, was invalid with regard to no-fault benefits. In Nygaard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 301 Minn. 10, 221 N.W.2d 151 (1974), we held that a similar policy exclusion was invalid with regard to uninsured motorist coverage. However, this court has never considered a similar policy exclusion with regard to liability coverage. The Minnesota No-Fault Act has not altered the basic framework of liability law. The premise underlying no-fault and uninsured motorist coverage is first-party in nature, as opposed to the third-party coverage involved in the instant case. Our decision to affirm is consistent with the holdings in Farber v. Great American Insurance Co., 406 F.2d 1228 (7th Cir. 1969) (interpreting Indiana law); Jones v. Falcon, 297 So. 2d 746 (La.App.1974); and Limpert v. Smith, 56 Wis.2d 632, 203 N.W.2d 29 (1973). Affirmed.