Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

556 N.W.2d 214, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 824, 1996 WL 683919

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 20, 1996

DocketC4-95-2578

StatusPublished

This text of 556 N.W.2d 214 (Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 556 N.W.2d 214, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 824, 1996 WL 683919 (Mich. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for further review of the decision of the Court of Appeals filed June 25, 1996 affirming the summary judgment entered in favor of Allen Cormier, et al. in this declaratory judgment action instituted to determine Cormier’s entitlement to the stacking of no-fault benefits, Johnson v. State Farm, Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 551 N.W.2d 232 (Minn.App.1996), be, and the same is, granted for the purpose of reversing that decision and remanding to the Kittson County District Court with instructions that summary judgment be entered in favor of State Farm. The request of the Insurance Federation of Minnesota to serve and file a brief as amicus curiae is denied.

In our view, the court of appeals has misapprehended the analysis in Meister v. Western Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., 479 N.W.2d 372 (Minn.1992) and the application of Minn.Stat. § 65B.47 and has failed to acknowledge the critical distinction between the basic economic loss coverage required by statute and optional additional medical coverage benefits. Here, while the owner of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was injured had elected to stack her three basic economic loss no-fault policies on three separate vehicles, for the benefit of herself and her family members, the plaintiff was not an insured under the policies issued with regard to the two other vehicles and was only an insured by virtue of his presence as a passenger in the vehicle involved in the accident and was only an insured in relation to that vehicle. Stacking of benefits is not authorized under these circumstances.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alexander M. Keith A.M. Keith Chief Justice

BLATZ, J. took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for further review of the decision of the Court of Appeals filed June 25, 1996 affirming the summary judgment entered in favor of Allen Cormier, et al. in this declaratory judgment action instituted to determine Cormier’s entitlement to the stacking of no-fault benefits, Johnson v. State Farm, Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 551 N.W.2d 232 (Minn.App.1996), be, and the same is, granted for the purpose of reversing that decision and remanding to the Kittson County District Court with instructions that summary judgment be entered in favor of State Farm. The request of the Insurance Federation of Minnesota to serve and file a brief as amicus curiae is denied.

In our view, the court of appeals has misapprehended the analysis in Meister v. Western Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., 479 N.W.2d 372 (Minn.1992) and the application of Minn.Stat. § 65B.47 and has failed to acknowledge the critical distinction between the basic economic loss coverage required by statute and optional additional medical coverage benefits. Here, while the owner of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was injured had elected to stack her three basic economic loss no-fault policies on three separate vehicles, for the benefit of herself and her family members, the plaintiff was not an insured under the policies issued with regard to the two other vehicles and was only an insured by virtue of his presence as a passenger in the vehicle involved in the accident and was only an insured in relation to that vehicle. Stacking of benefits is not authorized under these circumstances.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alexander M. Keith A.M. Keith Chief Justice

BLATZ, J. took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 N.W.2d 214, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 824, 1996 WL 683919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-minn-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack