Reinsurance Ass'n of Minnesota v. Johannessen

516 N.W.2d 562, 1994 Minn. App. LEXIS 486, 1994 WL 199801

• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota
• Decided: May 24, 1994
• Docket: C1-93-1965
• Status: Published

Opinions

OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge.

Appellant Randall D. Decker challenges the trial court’s conclusion that respondent insurer is not liable for coverage in a declaratory judgment action. We affirm.

FACTS

Robert and Bonnie Johannessen operate a 600-acre dairy farm, with a milking herd of 85 to 90 cows. In 1989 the Johannessens employed appellant Randall D. Decker to plow the fields, plant crops, tend the livestock, and perform minor maintenance on the farm machinery.

On August 1, 1989, Decker was injured on the Johannessens’ farm. Decker had been working with Robert Johannessen and another farm laborer on a self-propelled swather. The three had just mounted and started a new engine on the swather when a drive pulley broke from the engine’s crankshaft and struck Decker, injuring him. In the preceding year, the Johannessens had paid Decker and one other farm laborer wages of more than $2,000.

Decker sued the Johannessens for damages for his bodily injuries. The Johannes-sens tendered defense to their farm liability insurer, respondent Reinsurance Association of Minnesota (“RAM”). RAM brought this declaratory judgment action against Decker and the Johannessens for a determination that the Johannessens’ farm liability policy provides no coverage for Decker’s bodily injury claim.

At trial, Decker submitted three grounds for policy coverage. The trial court made written findings and concluded that the policy unambiguously did not cover the injuries. Decker appeals.

ISSUES

I. Did the trial court err in concluding that the policy is unambiguous?

II. Did the trial court err in concluding that the insureds had no reasonable expectation of coverage?

ANALYSIS

I.

Decker argues the trial court erred in concluding that the farm liability policy is unambiguous. Whether the language of an insurance policy is ambiguous is a question of law. Columbia Heights Motors, Inc. v. Allstate Ins., 275 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Minn.1979). When the language of an insurance policy is reasonably subject to more than one interpretation, the policy is ambiguous. Id. Ambiguity may also result from an irreconcilable conflict between terms or provisions within the policy. Rusthoven v. Commercial Standard Ins., 387 N.W.2d 642, 644 (Minn.1986). A policy’s complexity alone, however, does not make it ambiguous. Farmers Home Mut. Ins. v. Lill, 332 N.W.2d 635, 637-38 (Minn.1983).

We agree with the trial court that the policy is clear and unambiguous. As the trial court pointed out, “it is apparent from reading the declaration sheet that the policy insured only ‘farm employees — $2000 or less in payroll’ ” This liability limitation is prominently located on the declaration sheet and is not in fine print. It is well established that the declarations pages of an insurance policy are a crucial part of the policy, and interpretation of the declarations is important to determine the scope of the policy. Seaway Port Auth. of Duluth v. Midland Ins., 430 N.W.2d 242, 248 (Minn.App.1988) (citing Lill, 332 N.W.2d at 637).

Read as a whole, the liability policy covers only occasional, low wage farm laborers.¹ It does not purport to be a workers’ compensation substitute. The liability provision contains an express condition of liability. Coverage extends to “a farm employee while performing duties in connection with the farming operations * * * only if total remuneration to all farmer employees * * * is $2,000 or less.” (Emphasis added.)² A farm employee is defined as an employee of any insured whose duties are in connection with the farming operations of the insured.

Decker admits that he is a farm employee who earned more than $2,000 in the year preceding the accident, but he contends that he falls within two policy definitions of the term “insured.” As an “insured,” he would not be subject to the exclusion for earning more than $2,000 and therefore would be covered.

Decker first turns to the policy’s personal liability form which defines an “insured” as: “[A]ny person while performing duties as a domestic employee.”³ (Emphasis added.) It is clear that Decker does not meet this definition of “insured” simply because he was not “performing duties as a domestic employee.” The record shows that Decker was hired as a farm laborer. He was not performing “personal needs” or “personal household related matters” on behalf of the Johannessens. Rather, he helped operate a 600-acre dairy farm and was helping repair farm machinery when he was hurt.

The repair of farm implements falls within the business of farming and the duties of a farm employee. It does not fall within the ordinary and generally understood duties of a “domestic employee.” See West Bend Mut. Ins. v. Milwaukee Mut Ins., 384 N.W.2d 877, 880 (Minn.1986) (words in insurance policies should be given their ordinary and generally understood meaning); see St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. National Computer Systems, 490 N.W.2d 626, 631 (Minn.App.1992) (in construing insurance policies, terms must be given their plain, ordinary and popular meaning, to give effect to the parties’ intention), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 17, 1992). Moreover, Decker’s interpretation of the policy⁴ entirely negates the policy’s separate definitions and treatment of “farm employees” and “domestic employees.” An interpretation which “entirely neutralizes one provision should not be adopted if the contract is susceptible of another construction which gives effect to all its provisions and is consistent with the general intent.” Wyatt v. Wyatt, 239 Minn. 434, 437, 58 N.W.2d 873, 875 (1953). Thus, the trial court did not err in finding that Decker was not a domestic employee. See Minn.R.Civ.P. 52.01.

Alternatively, Decker argues that he meets another policy definition of “insured,” which states:

c. A person while performing duties as a farm employee of an insured is an insured ivith respect to farm implements and other vehicles covered under this policy.

(Emphasis added.) Because the self-propelled swather is a “farm implement,” Decker argues that he falls within this policy definition of an “insured.”

Again, we disagree with Decker’s interpretation because it isolates words and phrases from their context rather than giving them meaning in accordance with the obvious purpose of the whole policy. See Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Smith, 247 Minn. 151, 157, 76 N.W.2d 486, 491 (1956) (rejecting “interpretation by dissection”). Read in isolation, Decker may fall under this farm implement provision. Read in context, it is clearly inapplicable.

Liability insurance is:

That type of insurance protection which indemnifies one from liability to third persons as contrasted with insurance coverage for losses sustained by the insured.

Black’s Law Dictionary 473 (6th ed. 1990). In this case, the personal liability form is designed to indemnify Decker from liability if he is driving or operating a farm implement and has an accident with a third party. In that case, the policy would indemnify Decker from any claims brought by the third party against him. The liability provision, however, is not designed to cover losses sustained by Decker himself in the accident. Therefore, the trial court correctly concluded that Decker was not covered by this provision of the policy.

In summary, under the unambiguous policy, Decker was a farm employee performing farm duties. As such, he was expressly excluded from coverage because Johannessens’ policy did not cover farm employees if all farm employees were paid more than $2,000 during the 365 days preceding the accident. Therefore, the trial court did not err in rejecting Decker’s claim.

II.

Decker contends that he is covered by the policy under the doctrine of reasonable expectations. He argues that the Jo-hannessens had a reasonable expectation for coverage under the doctrine in Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western Nat’l Mut. Ins., 366 N.W.2d 271, 277-79 (Minn.1985). The doctrine is generally applied to protect individuals where the insurance policy terms have been misrepresented or misunderstood, or where legal technicalities would defeat coverage which the insured reasonably believed was in place. See id. at 276-77.

There is no evidence in the record, however, that the insured was actually misled. The doctrine should not be applied where a prominent policy term excludes coverage and the evidence does not indicate the insured was misled. Marschall v. Reinsurance Ass’n of Minn., 447 N.W.2d 460, 462 (Minn.App.1989). Because the contract is unambiguous, and the evidence does not support a finding that the insured was misled, we decline to apply the reasonable expectations doctrine to this case.

DECISION

The trial court correctly concluded that the farm liability insurance policy unambiguously excluded farm laborers, such as Decker, earning an aggregate wage of $2,000 or more in the 365 days preceding the accident. The policy clearly delineated “farm employees” from “domestic employees.” It did not cover losses sustained by a farm employee while operating a farm implement. Absent an ambiguity and facts showing that the insured was misled, the insured had no reasonable expectation of coverage.

Affirmed.

1 . The policy has an express liability exclusion for bodily injury if benefits are payable or required under workers’ compensation or other occupational laws.

2 . The relevant liability provision states:

3.Employer's Liability — Farm Employees. Coverage L-Personal liability and Coverage M-Medical Payments to Others are extended to apply to bodily injury to a farm employee while performing duties in connection with the farming operations of an insured.

This provision, however,- is immediately followed by two express conditions, one of which states:

b. We agree to provide this coverage only if total remuneration to all fanner employees, other than persons insured, is $2000 or less in the 365 days preceding the date of occurrence.

(Emphasis added.)

3 . The policy's definition states:

Domestic Employee means a person employed by an insured to perform duties in connection with the maintenance or use of the insured premises. This includes persons who perform household or domestic services or duties of a similar nature elsewhere for an insured. This does not include persons while performing duties in connection with an insured's business.

4 . Decker also argues that he held a dual status under the policy definitions — both as a "farm employee” and as a “domestic employee.” See Hall v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 107 Ohio App. 13, 18, 155 N.E.2d 462, 465 (1957) (holding that being a "farm laborer” does not necessarily prevent one from also being in domestic employment). This interpretation of the policy, however, contradicts the language and purpose of the policy. It is also unreasonable because it nullifies the $2,000 remuneration exclusion. Therefore, we decline to follow the Ohio court's reasoning.