Court Opinion

ID: 9574634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:06:37.537518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:26.313004
License: Public Domain

OPINION
G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents. We hold that respondent-insurer’s insurance policy excludes third-party coverage for an intentional collision and we affirm.
FACTS
On the afternoon of February 27, 1995, appellant’s daughter committed suicide by driving her automobile into an 18-wheel tractor-trailer driven by respondent-driver, Lonnie Odegard. Prior to the collision, the decedent had left behind suicide notes addressed to her parents and best friend. As a result of the collision, Odegard was pushed into a ditch. Soon after, Odegard developed shoul*740der problems, which required surgery and caused him to lose time at work. At the time of the filing of this action, Odegard had received approximately $28,000 in workers’ compensation benefits.
The original plaintiff in this case, the workers’ compensation insurer providing Ode-gard’s benefits, commenced an action against decedent’s insurer, respondent State Farm Insurance Company. Plaintiff-insurer sought declaratory relief, asking the district court to compel State Farm to provide coverage to the decedent’s estate. The current appellant, Eileen Nygaard, mother and personal representative of the decedent, later joined the suit to compel State Farm to provide insurance coverage for the collision.
On summary judgment, State Farm opposed appellant’s motion for declaratory relief because of an “accident” provision in decedent’s State Farm policy. In the amended complaint and brief to this court, appellant conceded the deceased’s suicidal intent, explaining that the deceased “picked [Odegard’s] truck to drive into, in order to commit suicide. She achieved her objective, and was killed by the collision.” The “Liability” section of the policy provided that:
We will:
1. pay damages which an insured becomes legally liable to pay because of:
a. bodily injury to others, and
b. damage to or destruction of property including loss of its use,
caused by accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of your car;
[[Image here]]
State Farm maintained that appellant should be denied coverage because the decedent’s act of suicide was not an accident. The district court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment without a memo or explanation.
Appellant challenges the district court’s order and judgment, contending that State Farm must provide coverage to decedent’s estate, which would allow the workers’ compensation insurer to pursue liability indemnification from respondent-insurer.
ISSUE
Does the deceased’s suicide qualify as an “accident” for the purpose of motor-vehicle third-party liability coverage?
ANALYSIS
On appeal from summary judgment, a reviewing court must determine whether the district court erred in its application of the law and whether there are any genuine issues of material fact. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn.1990). On established facts, “[ijnsurance coverage issues are questions of law for the court.” State Farm Ins. Cos. v. Seefeld, 481 N.W.2d 62, 64 (Minn.1992) (citation omitted). Yet, a reviewing court views “the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.” Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.1993).
The current issue presents a case of first impression for this court. The supreme court has explained that issues of insurance coverage and exclusions are fact and situation dependent. See, e.g., Classified Ins. Corp. v. Vodinelich, 368 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Minn.1985). While this case features unique facts, Minnesota appellate courts have ruled on comparable questions, and, as a result, this court is not without precedent.
The result here rests on the interpretation and application of respondent’s insurance policy issued to the decedent. “An insurance policy provision is to be interpreted according to both its plain, ordinary meaning and what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood it to mean.” Retail Systems, Inc. v. CNA Ins. Cos., 469 N.W.2d 735, 737 (Minn.App.1991) (citing Farmers Home Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lill, 332 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Minn.1983)), review denied (Minn. Aug. 2, 1991). Unambiguous language in an insurance policy must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 536 N.W.2d 305, 311 (Minn.1995). Finally, a court “must not create an ambiguity where none exists in order to afford coverage to the insured.” Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metcalf, 501 N.W.2d 690, 692 (Minn.App.1993) (citation omitted).
*741The decedent’s policy is unambiguous. The policy provides coverage for an “accident.” The supreme court has defined “accident” to have a generally understood meaning: “an accident is simply a happening that is unexpected and unintended.” McIntosh v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 488 N.W.2d 476, 478 (Minn.1992) (citing Weis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 242 Minn. 141, 144, 64 N.W.2d 366, 368 (1954) (“an unexpected happening without intention or design”)). If the collision in this case were unexpected or unintended, then coverage exists, and if not, then coverage is barred. See id. (interpreting accident coverage to imply an “intentional act” exclusion).
Appellant argues that Odegard’s perspective is controlling, .and, because the collision was “unexpected” from that perspective, coverage should exist. But such a conclusion overlooks the rulings of the supreme court in Lobeck v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 582 N.W.2d 246 (Minn.1998), and McIntosh.
Lobeck discussed an exclusion’s validity, distinguishing between first- and third-party benefits in light of the Minnesota No-Fault Act. The Lobeck court explained that the no-fault act “ ‘leaves unaltered the basic framework of the law of [third-party] liability insurance’” despite its requirement of first-party benefits. Id. at 250 (quoting Hilden v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 365 N.W.2d 765, 769 (Minn.1985). “As such, while we have often invalidated exclusions to first-party coverage under the No-Fault Act, we have upheld exclusions to third-party liability coverage.” Id.
The McIntosh court confronted a policy similar to our present case which also provided coverage only for an “accident.” In addition, the policy question in McIntosh featured an intentional act that caused injury. The insured was injured by a disgruntled former boyfriend who shot her in the head during a car chase. The insured claimed both first-party no-fault coverage and uninsured motorist benefits because the boyfriend lacked automobile insurance. 488 N.W.2d at 477.
The court explained that the case rested on whose perspective defines “accident.” Id. at 478. The court noted that the “term ‘accident’ takes its meaning from the context in which it is used.” Id. at 479. In the first-party no-fault context, the term “accident” is considered from the point of view of the victim. Id. at 480. The court reached this result because no-fault benefit eligibility depends “exclusively on the injured victim and whether she has been hurt under circumstances arising from the use of a motor vehicle.” Id.
The court ruled an “accident” is viewed from the perspective of the tortfeasor in the context of uninsured-underinsured coverage. Id. at 479. The court so concluded by first noting that liability focuses on the conduct of the uninsured motorist because compensation under an insured’s policy rests on proving that the uninsured is liable. Id. Ruling that uninsured motorist coverage is not first-party in nature, the court explained that “ [uninsured motorist coverage is not no-fault coverage; fault on the part of the uninsured motorist must be proven under tort law.” Id.
The court’s uninsured/underinsured analysis is persuasive in the present case, because the third-party liability benefits that appellant claims must also be proven under tort law. Appellant pursues indemnity for the decedent’s act. Such indemnity rests on the decedent’s tort liability for Odegard’s injuries.
Moreover, as cited by the McIntosh court, the committee comment to section 2 of the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (UMVARA) notes that
the term “accident” as applied to the obligation to maintain security for tort liability, refers to events which are “accidents” from the point of view of the person causing harm.
14 U.L.A. 41, 53 (1990); see McIntosh, 488 N.W.2d at 479. Thus, liability to a third party for the first party’s acts naturally focuses on the actions of the tortfeasor, which in this case is the decedent.
Next, we move to decide whether coverage exists under the decedent’s policy. Appellant concedes that the decedent intentionally collided with Odegard to commit sui*742cide. Because the collision was neither unexpected nor unintended from the decedent’s perspective, it was not an accident. See McIntosh, 488 N.W.2d at 478. As a result, coverage is not afforded by this court under State Farm’s policy.
Yet, appellant argues that because the decedent did not intend to injure Odegard, the intentional act exclusion is not applicable. See German Mut Ins. Co. v. Yeager, 554 N.W.2d 116, 117 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Dec. 23, 1996) (ruling that an intentional act exclusion to insurance coverage applies only when insured intends to cause harm, not when insured merely intends the act); see also Continental W. Ins. Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 177-78, 244 N.W.2d 121, 126 (1976) (inferring intent to injure when the acts were calculated and remorseless, such as intentional preparation to inflict serious injury by carrying loaded guns). But our case is distinguishable from such cases because the decedent’s subjective intent is irrelevant. This case does not depend on an intent to injure, but instead focuses on whether the collision qualifies as an “accident” under the policy.
DECISION
The district court did not err in denying coverage. The decedent’s intentional act of suicide does not constitute an “accident” for purposes of third-party liability insurance coverage.
Affirmed.