 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Norman v. Enevoldsen5/30/2000
equires owners of motor vehicles that will be operated on public streets to obtain liability insurance. Minn. Stat. ยงรก65B.48, subd. 1 (1998). But there is nothing in this record to show that Aaron Enevoldsen would have or could have complied with that mandate.
Moreover, the trustees are unable to state a claim of misrepresentation against KeEtta Enevoldsen. Under Minnesota law, two essential elements of the tort of misrepresentation are (1) the defendant intended by the misrepresentation to induce the plaintiff to act, and (2) the plaintiff was induced to act in reliance on the representation. Gorham v. Benson Optical, 539 N.W.2d 798, 802 (Minn. App. 1995).
KeEtta Enevoldsen's representation was made to the insurer alone and solely to induce the insurer to issue an insurance policy. Neither the decedent nor the trustees had any knowledge of KeEtta Enevoldsen's representation or of the policy that the insurer issued. There exists no fact from which to draw a reasonable inference that anyone other than the insurer was induced to act in reliance on the representation.
We answer the certified question in the negative. Because respondents are unable to state a claim against KeEtta Enevoldsen under Minnesota law, she is entitled to judgment dismissing the action against her. A dismissal of the action makes the summary judgment issue moot.
Reversed.
|