Opinion ID: 815102
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Minnesota Law

Text: In light of the absence of a valid choice-of-law provision in the policy, see Allianz Ins. Co. of Canada v. Sanftleben, 454 F.3d 853, 855 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Milliken & Co. v. Eagle Packaging Co., 295 N.W.2d 377, 380 n.1 (Minn. 1980)), and the lack of any conflict in the law of the contact states, see Platte Valley Bank v. Tetra Fin. Grp., LLC, 682 F.3d 1078, 1083 (8th Cir. 2012); Hague v. Allstate Ins. Co., 289 N.W.2d 43, 46-47 (Minn. 1978), we apply Minnesota substantive law to this diversity action, see Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). “Under Minnesota law, the insured bears the initial burden of establishing that coverage exists, at which point the insurer then carries the burden of demonstrating that a policy exclusion applies.” Friedberg v. Chubb & Son, Inc., 691 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co., 718 N.W.2d 888, 894 (Minn. 2006)). “Interpretation of an insurance contract, including whether provisions in a policy are ambiguous, is a legal question subject to de novo review.” Latterell v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 801 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn. 2011). “Insurance policy provisions are ambiguous only when they are ‘reasonably subject to more than one interpretation.’” Id. (quoting Am. Commerce Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. Minn. Mut. Fire and Cas. Co., 551 N.W.2d 224, 227 (Minn. 1996)). “Ambiguity in a policy will be construed against the insurer, but ‘the court has no right to read an ambiguity into the plain language of an insurance policy.’” Friedberg, 691 F.3d at 951 (quoting State Farm Ins. Cos. v. Seefeld, 481 N.W.2d 62, 64 (Minn. 1992)). The courts “must -5- fastidiously guard against the invitation to create ambiguities where none exist.” Latterell, 801 N.W.2d at 921 (quoting Columbia Heights Motors, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 275 N.W.2d 32, 36 (Minn. 1979)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In interpreting the policy language, a court is to give the terms ‘their plain, ordinary, and popular meaning.’” Columbia Heights Motors, Inc., 275 N.W.2d at 34 (quoting Ostendorf v. Arrow Ins. Co., 182 N.W.2d 190, 192 (Minn. 1970)). “The policy’s language ‘should be construed, if possible, so as to give effect to all provisions.’” Friedberg, 691 F.3d at 951 (quoting Bobich v. Oja, 104 N.W.2d 19, 24 (Minn. 1960)).