Court Opinion

ID: 9532271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:19:45.34372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:43.270653
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
YETKA, Justice.
By way of further explanation for our earlier decision, we think it clear that in adopting the concept of no-fault insurance into the Minnesota statutes, the legislature intended no change in the law insofar as uninsured motorist insurance protection is concerned. The statutes dealing will uninsured motorist insurance were intended to be incorporated intact. Since decisions of this court prior to no fault, cited in the main opinion, make it clear that the protection of the uninsured motorist statutes applied to persons and not vehicles, appellant would be covered.
The 1977 amendments to no fault added nothing to change the law, therefore, but reworded and clarified the statutes to comply with what the law already was as interpreted by earlier decisions of this court. Thus, there is really no question of retroac-tivity to be decided.
With this explanation, our earlier decision is affirmed.