Court Opinion

ID: 9685164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:25:12.59306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.938108
License: Public Domain

OTIS, Justice
(dissenting in part).
The language of Minn.St. 65B.64, subd. 3, is unequivocal and unambiguous:
“ * * * Persons claiming benefits [the Distel children] as a result of injury to members of the owner’s household [the parents who were killed] shall also be disqualified from benefits if those members [the parents] knew or reasonably should have known that security covering the vehicle was not provided as required by Laws 1974, Chapter 408.” (Italics supplied.)
In my opinion, it is totally unreasonable to have coverage governed by the knowledge of small children who are completely removed from the decision-making process of their parents in matters of insurance. It is inconceivable that they would be consulted in such matters. Obviously the word “members” refers to the parents.
SHERAN, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.