Opinion ID: 2234521
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The (b)(2) Savings Clause

Text: When interpreting a federal statute, the court must give effect to the plain meaning of a statute when the language is clear. Martin v. City of Rochester, 642 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn.2002) (citing Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997)). Financial responsibility, as used in the savings clause, is not defined by 49 U.S.C. § 30106(d) or 49 U.S.C. § 30102 (2006) (both providing definitions for the Graves Amendment). In Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the meaning of the phrase financial responsibility in the Graves Amendment to determine whether a Florida wrongful death action was preempted. 540 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1369, 173 L.Ed.2d 591 (2009). The court concluded that Congress used financial responsibility ... to denote state laws which impose insurance-like requirements. Id. at 1247-48. Relying on the pairing of the terms financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements and the common legal usage of the term financial responsibility, Garcia defined insurance-like requirements as the financial equivalent of insurance. Id. at 1247-48; see also generally Michael K. Steenson, Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance § 1.01 (3d ed.2007). The parties do not dispute that the phrase financial responsibility in the Graves Amendment refers to insurance-like requirements under state law. We agree with Garcia and conclude that financial responsibility refers to insurance-like requirements under state law. Additionally, the phrase financial responsibility appears to modify the word requirement in the (b)(2) savings clause, thereby supporting the conclusion that financial responsibility refers to insurance-like requirements. In summary, the Graves Amendment preempts state laws that impose vicarious liability on rental-vehicle owners, but the (b)(2) savings clause excludes from preemption state laws that impose liability on rental-vehicle owners for failure to meet insurance-like requirements or liability insurance requirements under state law. See 49 U.S.C. § 30106. Therefore, to satisfy the (b)(2) savings clause, Meyer must establish that Minn.Stat. §§ 65B.49, subd. 5a(i)(2), and 169.09, subd. 5a, impose liability on rental-vehicle owners for failure to meet insurance-like requirements or liability insurance requirements.