Opinion ID: 866581
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Causation Under Minnesota Law

Text: Harleysville challenges causation under the clause covering PDSI’s assumption of Miller’s “tort liability . . . [for] ‘bodily injury’ . . . to a third person or organization.” The policy limits Harleysville’s coverage to “‘bodily injury’ . . . caused, in whole or in part, by [PDSI] or by those acting on [PDSI’s] behalf.” (Emphasis added). The district court interpreted the phrase “caused, in whole or in part,” to require “but for” causation. Unsurprisingly, PDSI and Miller agree with the district court’s interpretation. Harleysville argues the phrase “caused, in whole or in part” requires some “form of direct or proximate causation.” When we heard oral argument in this case, Bolduc, 825 N.W.2d at 695, was pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the parties agreed the Bolduc decision might indicate how the Minnesota Supreme Court would interpret the causal language at issue in this case. See id. We deferred deciding this case until the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision in Bolduc. With the benefit of Bolduc, we discern two strands in Minnesota’s interpretation of causal language in insurance contracts. First, under Minnesota law, the phrase “arising out of” requires “but for” causation. See, e.g., Faber v. Roelofs, 250 N.W.2d 817, 822-23 (Minn. 1977). Second, under Minnesota law, the phrase “caused by acts or omissions” contains a fault requirement. See Bolduc, 825 N.W.2d at 708. Miller and PDSI propose this case falls within the first strand, while Harleysville maintains it falls into the second. But the simple fact is that the text at issue here—“caused, in whole or in part”—contains neither the words “arising out of” nor the words “caused by acts or omissions.” Thus, neither Faber nor Bolduc directly answers the contractual interpretation question posed by this case. -11- Our task, then, is to predict how the Minnesota Supreme Court would interpret the precise contractual language at issue here. See United Fire, 328 F.3d at 413. In making this prediction, we decline the parties’ invitation to wade into a dense thicket of over-parsed distinctions between individual phrases extracted, without context, from various Minnesota Supreme Court decisions. Instead, we rely—as we expect the Minnesota Supreme Court would—on fundamental principles of Minnesota law. First, we give “[u]nambiguous words . . . their ‘plain, ordinary, and popular meaning.’” Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis. v. Wozniak Travel, Inc., 762 N.W.2d 572, 575 (Minn. 2009) (quoting Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 457 N.W.2d 175, 179 (Minn. 1990)). Second, we “‘read and stud[y] [provisions in an insurance contract] independently and in context with all other relevant provisions and the language of the policy as a whole.’” Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Wallerich, 563 F.3d 707, 712 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 419 N.W.2d 848, 850 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)); see also Cement, Sand & Gravel Co. v. Agric. Ins. Co. of Watertown, N.Y., 30 N.W.2d 341, 345 (Minn. 1947). Third, in interpreting contractual language, we do not abandon our “‘common sense.’” Westchester Fire, 563 F.3d at 712 (quoting Mutual Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wilson Twp., 603 N.W.2d 151, 153 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)).