 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Star Mutual Insurance Co. v. Linn6/21/2005
This appeal, which is brought on behalf of appellant, one-year-old Korey Young, challenges the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of respondent North Star Mutual Insurance Company. Appellant, who was injured while in the care of a home daycare provider, contends the district court erred in holding that as a matter of law appellant's injuries were excluded from coverage under the homeowners'-liability policy issued by respondent. We reverse and remand.
DECISION
On appeal from summary judgment, this court asks whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). The parties agree on the facts as set forth by the district court, leaving only questions of law for this court to review. A reviewing court is not bound by and need not give deference to a district court's decision on a purely legal issue. Modrow v. JP Foodservice, Inc., 656 N.W.2d 389, 393 (Minn. 2003).
Importantly, we note that " n insurer has the burden of proving that a policy exclusion applies. In interpreting a policy exclusion, any ambiguity in the language of the policy must be construed in favor of the insured." Henning Nelson Constr. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Am. Life Ins. Co., 383 N.W.2d 645, 652 (Minn. 1986) (citation omitted).
Jessica Linn operated a daycare business out of her home. She had two children of her own at home and was paid to provide care for four additional children, including appellant. Respondent issued a homeowners'-liability policy to Linn covering the period from August 26, 2003, to August 26, 2004. On September 25, 2003, appellant was sleeping in a back bedroom. While Linn vacuumed her kitchen floor, Linn's two-year-old son walked into the back bedroom and bit appellant several times. Appellant's injuries were significant and required emergency medical treatment.
A personal-injury action was filed against Linn on appellant's behalf. Respondent brought a declaratory-judgment action against Linn and appellant, seeking a judgment that "Linn is entitled to neither indemnity nor defense in connection with claims brought against her by [appellant] and . . . that any injuries sustained by [appellant] are not covered by the policy of insurance issued by [respondent] to" Linn. Respondent later filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the policy's business-pursuits exclusion precluded coverage. Appellant opposed respondent's motion, arguing that the business-pursuits exclusion does not apply and that because the underlying claim is within insurance coverage, summary judgment should be granted in favor of appellant. In granting respondent's motion for summary judgment, the district court determined that the policy's business-pursuits exclusion applied and that the policy's exception to the exclusion did not.
The homeowners' policy at issue includes coverage for "all sums for which an 'insured' is liable by law because of 'bodily injury' . . . caused by an 'occurrence' to which this coverage applies." The policy states that respondent "will defend a suit seeking damages if the suit resulted from 'bodily injury' . . . not excluded under this coverage." The policy contains a business-pursuits exclusion, which states that the policy does not apply to bodily injury "resulting from activities related to the 'business' of an 'insured', except as provided by Incidental Business Coverage." Linn did not purchase the Incidental Business Coverage. But the policy also includes an exception to the business-pursuits exclusion, which states that the term "business" does not include "activities that are related to
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.
|
|