Opinion ID: 2218553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Grinnell Policy Exclusion

Text: Appellant argues that restrictive language in the Grinnell policy conflicts with the 1985 Minnesota law mandating underinsured motorist coverage and therefore is unenforceable. Donald Roering's policy provides: This coverage [uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist] does not apply to bodily injury sustained by a person: (1) while occupying a motor vehicle owned by you or a relative for which insurance is not afforded under this part, or when struck by the motor vehicle. (Emphasis in original). As a result of this exclusionary language, appellant would be unable to obtain coverage under the Grinnell policy. Since Randy Roering's motorcycle was a vehicle owned by you or a relative but was not afforded insurance under the Grinnell policy, the exclusion would apply and he would not qualify for coverage. This court has held that contract provisions which conflict with statutory law will not be enforced. AMCO Ins. Co. v. Lang, 420 N.W.2d 895, 900 (Minn.1988); Burgraff v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 346 N.W.2d 627, 632 (Minn.1984). Under the facts of this case, Grinnell's exclusion would deny appellant coverage guaranteed under the No-Fault Act. The Act provides that: If at the time of the accident the injured person is not occupying a motor vehicle, the injured person is entitled to select any one limit of liability for any one vehicle afforded by a policy under which the injured person is insured. Minn.Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(5). The Grinnell policy language results in an exclusion broader than permitted under the No-Fault Act. Although appellant would be entitled to recover under the Act, the policy exclusion restricts his recovery to accidents occurring with vehicles owned by himself or a relative that are afforded insurance by Grinnell. Such an exclusion conflicts with the coverage guaranteed by the No-Fault Act and is invalid. Therefore, appellant is not excluded from underinsured coverage under Donald Roering's policy. We answer the third certified question in the negative. [3] Certified questions answered.