 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Legros v. Atlantic Mutual Companies12/24/2002
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent insurance company. Appellant claims to have met the burden of showing that the policy, which contained an umbrella endorsement, extended underinsured motorists' coverage to appellant. The district court disagreed and granted respondent's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the umbrella provision applies only to liability and not to underinsured motorists' coverage. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant suffered serious injuries when struck by a car driven by an unrelated third-party. Appellant settled his personal injury claim against that third-party for $30,000, the liability limit of that individual's insurance policy.
Appellant is an Atlantic Mutual policyholder, insured under the Atlantic Mutual Master Plan ("the policy"), a package containing several different coverages, including property, liability, and an umbrella endorsement. The policy's terms include $300,000 for automobile liability, $300,000 for underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage, and $2,000,000 in umbrella coverage. Because the third party involved in the accident with appellant was an underinsured motorist, appellant received the full underinsured-motorist benefits of $300,000 from respondent.
The dispute here is whether the policy's $2,000,000 umbrella endorsement applies to, and increases, the coverage limit of the underlying UIM coverage. Appellant filed a declaratory judgment action arguing that the umbrella endorsement provides $2,000,000 in UIM coverage above the $300,000 primary underinsured coverage already disbursed by respondent.
The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The district court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment and denied appellant's motion for partial summary judgment. This appeal followed.
DECISION
The main issue before us is whether the district court correctly construed the insurance policy. On appeal from a summary judgment, we determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. Betlach v. Wayzata Condominium, 281 N.W.2d 328, 330 (Minn. 1979). Because the parties do not dispute the material facts, this court will review the legal questions de novo and give no deference to the district court's interpretation. See A.J. Chromy Const. Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 579, 582 (Minn. 1977). "Insurance coverage issues are questions of law for the court." State Farm Ins. Co. v. Seefeld, 481 N.W.2d 62, 64 (Minn. 1992) (citation omitted).
Appellant has the initial burden of demonstrating that the umbrella endorsement provides coverage for his asserted claim. Domtar Inc. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 563 N.W.2d 724, 736 (Minn. 1997). Appellant first argues that the express language of the Minnesota Umbrella Coverage Endorsement page indicates that respondent intended a broad extension of the existing UIM coverage. The endorsement that explains the scope of the umbrella states:
PERSONAL UMBRELLA COVERAGE
Your Personal Umbrella Coverage gives you and your family extra coverage against liability stemming from a disaster or other major accident. We call it your "umbrella" because it provides higher and wider protection than your regular liability coverage does. Your Personal Umbrella Coverage increases your insurance in two different ways:
We add $1,000,000 or whatever is shown on the Coverages Page for Personal Umbrella Coverage to your liability coverage limit; and
We provide coverage against more kinds of accidents no matter where they occur.
T
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|