 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Soo Line Railroad Co. v. Brown's Crew Car of Wyoming3/11/2003
ca Mut. Ins. Co. v. Emmco Ins. Co., 309 Minn. 21, 29, 243 N.W.2d 134, 139 (1976); Minneapolis, St. Paul & Ste. Marie R.R. Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 268 Minn. 390, 396, 129 N.W.2d 777, 782 (1964). The insurer has the burden of showing the applicability of an exclusion. SCSC Corp. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 536 N.W.2d 305, 313 (Minn. 1995). But the insured has the burden of demonstrating entitlement to an exception to an exclusion. Id. at 313-14.
The Progressive insurance policy does not define the term "domestic employees." The district court interpreted the term to mean employees within the United States. Progressive argues that the term refers to household servants and workers.
When interpreting insurance-policy provisions, we must "apply ordinary and usual meanings unless the parties use some other meaning in the contract." Polaris Indus. L.P. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 539 N.W.2d 619, 622 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Jan. 25, 1996). Ambiguities in insurance policies are to be resolved in the insured's favor. Prahm v. Rupp Constr. Co., 277 N.W.2d 389, 390 (Minn. 1979).
An ambiguity exists if a word or phrase has more than one possible meaning. Dictionaries define "domestic" as referring to either a household worker or to a resident of a particular country. See, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 550 (3d ed. 1992). But we conclude that the former meaning is the one reasonably intended and understood by the policy language. The policy language does not limit the exception to "domestic employees," which would be ambiguous, but rather extends it to "domestic employees not entitled to workers' compensation benefits * * *." This description of a class of employees cures any ambiguity.
In Minnesota, domestic workers, that is, people employed in households, are excluded from workers'-compensation benefits. See Minn. Stat. ยงรก176.041, subd. 1(n) (2002). Thus, the sense of the term "domestic employee" is clear when we realize that this type of employee is not entitled to workers'-compensation benefits and therefore needs to rely on coverage under the automobile-liability policy. To use the term in the sense of a resident or citizen of the United States does not provide clarity, but rather leaves us to speculate as to the meaning and the purpose of the exception.
Furthermore, cases throughout the United States have interpreted the term "domestic employee" to mean household worker. See United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Gravette, 182 F.3d 649, 655 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding that "domestic" refers to a person who performs services in a private household); Richoux v. Callais & Sons, Inc., WL 10457, at *3 (E.D. La. 1987) (holding that the term "domestic employee" is not an ambiguous term and means a person who works for a private household); Dakota, Minn., & E. R.R. Corp. v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 639 N.W.2d 513, 516 (S.D. 2002) (holding that "domestic servant" means a person whose "labor is directed to the construction, maintenance or repair of the master's private properties or care of the master's family.").
A few Minnesota cases have defined "domestic employee" in the context of workers'-compensation cases. The supreme court has held that the object of the compensation act was to place upon industry, operated for profit, the burden of loss from injuries to employees engaged therein; that as such it was considered a part of the expense of operating the industry but that the act was not intended to place such burden and expense upon owners of homes not maintained for pecuniary gain. State v. Cooper, 205 Minn. 333, 335-36, 285 N.W. 903, 904 (Minn. 1939).
In Anderson v. Ueland, the supreme court
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|