UNITED FINANCIAL CAS. CO. v. NELSON, 923 N.W.2d 173 (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20150519974
Visitors: 15
Filed: May 18, 2015
Latest Update: May 18, 2015
Summary: OPINIONS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES HAVE BEEN ORDERED NOT PUBLISHED. UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT OR AUTHORITY IN ANY WISCONSIN STATE COURT, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED IN Rule 809.23(3). Judgment. Order affirmed. FootNotes 1. Unless otherwise specified, all citations refer to the CM/ECF pagination. 2. It appears that Carol Tynjala's homeowner's policy covered the snowmobile. (Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J.") at 1 & n.1, Oct. 27, 2014, D
Summary: OPINIONS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES HAVE BEEN ORDERED NOT PUBLISHED. UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT OR AUTHORITY IN ANY WISCONSIN STATE COURT, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED IN Rule 809.23(3). Judgment. Order affirmed. FootNotes 1. Unless otherwise specified, all citations refer to the CM/ECF pagination. 2. It appears that Carol Tynjala's homeowner's policy covered the snowmobile. (Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J.") at 1 & n.1, Oct. 27, 2014, Do..
More
OPINIONS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES HAVE BEEN ORDERED NOT PUBLISHED. UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT OR AUTHORITY IN ANY WISCONSIN STATE COURT, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED IN Rule 809.23(3).
Judgment. Order affirmed.
FootNotes
1. Unless otherwise specified, all citations refer to the CM/ECF pagination.
2. It appears that Carol Tynjala's homeowner's policy covered the snowmobile. (Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J.") at 1 & n.1, Oct. 27, 2014, Docket No. 18.) As a result, Tynjala's snowmobile was an underinsured vehicle. In light of the summary judgment posture and the requirement that the Court view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the Court will consider — and refer to — Tynjala's snowmobile as an underinsured vehicle under the Policy.
3. Stepec cites the version of the statute that was in place in 1974 when the decision was rendered. The current text of the statute is slightly different, although largely the same in substance: "a self-propelled vehicle originally manufactured and designed for travel on snow or ice steered by skis or runners." Minn.Stat. § 84.81, subd. 3 (2014).
4. Nelson argues that not covering snowmobiles would contravene the stated purpose of the No-Fault Act, which is "to relieve the severe economic distress of uncompensated victims of automobile accidents within this state...." Minn.Stat. § 65B.42(1). That is only one of several purposes enumerated in the No-Fault Act, however. Other purposes include "correct[ing] imbalances and abuses in the operation of the automobile accident tort liability system, to provide offsets to avoid duplicate recovery," and "prevent[ing] the overcompensation of those automobile accident victims suffering minor injuries." Minn.Stat. § 65B.42(2), (5). It is not at all clear that the Minnesota legislature intended for the one purpose Nelson cites to trump the Act's explicit language excluding snowmobiles from motor vehicle status. The Court will therefore reject Nelson's argument as to the purpose of the No-Fault Act.
5. Maya Rao, For snowmobilers, 2014 was a deadly year, StarTribune, (Jan. 6, 2015), http://www.startribune.com/local/287426421.html.
6. See Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts 2013, at 20 (2014) (internal report pagination), available at https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ots/reports-statistics/Documents/2013-crash-facts.pdf.
7. South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks, Snowmobile Rules & Regulations, http://gfp.sd.gov/to-do/snowmobile/rules-regs.aspx (alerting snowmobile riders that they must provide proof of liability insurance if stopped by a law enforcement officer for another offense).
Source: Leagle
