Court Opinion

ID: 9883400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:41:55.424047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:15.913356
License: Public Domain

FORSBERG, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In this case no vehicle owned by the insured ever entered the state of Minnesota. Because of that fact I submit that the plain language of 65B.50 subd. 2 excludes coverage. It provides:
“Notwithstanding any contrary provision in it, every contract of liability insurance for injury, wherever issued, covering obligations arising from ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, except a contract which provides coverage only for liability in excess of required minimum tort liability coverages, includes basic economic loss benefit coverages and residual liability coverages required by Section 65B.41 to 65B.71, while the vehicle is in this state, and qualifies as security covering the vehicle.” (Emphasis supplied).
Moreover, in Petty v. Allstate Insurance Co., 290 N.W.2d 763, 766 (1980) the court said:
In subd. 2 (65B.50), a licensed company agrees to provide “basic economic loss benefit coverages” “[njotwithstanding any contrary provision” in the original policy so long as the insured vehicle is in Minnesota.
(Emphasis supplied.) Again, the court in Petty says, quoting Hague v. Allstate Insurance Co., 289 N.W.2d 43 (Minn.1979):
When an insurance company doing business in a number of states writes a policy on an automobile, the company knows the automobile is a movable item which will be driven from state to state. The company, therefore, accepts the risk that the insured may be subject to liability not only in the state where the policy is written, but also in states other than where the policy is written, and that in many instances those states will apply their own law to the situation.
(Emphasis supplied.) The pivotal question is always “was the vehicle in the state of Minnesota.” Therefore, I would reverse.