Brill v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., No. 19-1416 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's award of summary judgment to Mid-Century in an insurance coverage dispute over the amount Mid-Century owed plaintiff after her husband was struck and killed by an underinsured motor (UIM) vehicle.
The court held that the fact that Mid-Century was licensed to write policies in Minnesota, combined with the husband's subsequent move to and residency there, does not dictate that the Mid-Century policy must be reformed to calculate UIM coverage under Minnesota's add-on approach. Consistent with the plain language of the statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that in order for Minnesota law to mandate that an insurer provide uninsured coverage consistent with that required by Section 65B.49 of the Minnesota Statutes, the insurance policy had to be renewed, delivered, or issued for delivery, or executed in Minnesota. Because Mid-Century issued the policy to plaintiff and her husband when they resided in Wisconsin and the policy was not renewed after the husband's move, section 65B.50's add-on approach to calculating UIM coverage is not required. Therefore, the court held that the plain language of the policy controls, which dictates a limits-less-paid approach to calculating UIM coverage.
Court Description: [Grasz. Author, with Erickson and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. The insurance policy in question was issued in Wisconsin to a Wisconsin resident and had not been renewed after plaintiff's decedent moved to Minnesota; as a result the "add-on" approach to calculating uninsured motorist coverage set out in Minn. Stat. Sec. 65B.50 did not apply; under the policy provisions, which dictate a "limits-less-paid" approach to calculating uninsured motorist coverage, the insurer was entitled to deduct the amount plaintiff recovered from the tort-feasor from the payout under the policy.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.