Background
Asli Jama drove a Honda Odyssey owned by her employer, 2nd Home Childcare, LLC, to a market in Minneapolis. After parking and walking across the street, she was struck and injured by a hit-and-run vehicle while returning across the street toward the Honda.
Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company insured the Honda under a policy issued to Jama’s employer. The policy provided uninsured- and underinsured-motorist coverage, but because the named insured was an LLC, Jama qualified as an insured only while “occupying” a covered auto—defined as being “in, upon, getting in, on, out or off” the vehicle. The district court granted Berkshire Hathaway summary judgment after determining that Jama was not occupying the Honda when she was injured.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Jama did not contend on appeal that she was occupying the Honda when the accident occurred. Instead, she argued that Minnesota law permitted coverage because she was using the vehicle and her injuries were a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of that use.
The court held that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Dougherty v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. did not support Jama’s claim because Dougherty concerned benefits sought by a person who was already insured under the relevant policy. Jama was not insured under Berkshire Hathaway’s policy unless she was occupying the covered vehicle. Minnesota’s No-Fault Act likewise did not require coverage because a person injured while not occupying a vehicle may select coverage under a policy only if that person is insured under it. Because Jama undisputedly was not occupying the Honda, she was not an insured and could not recover under the policy.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant must first qualify as an insured under the policy before invoking Minnesota precedent covering injuries arising naturally and reasonably from vehicle use.
- The Minnesota No-Fault Act did not extend uninsured-motorist benefits to Jama because she was not occupying the covered vehicle and was not otherwise insured under the employer’s policy.
- Courts will not expand automobile-insurance coverage beyond what Minnesota law requires and the parties contracted to provide.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between whether an injury arises from the use of a vehicle and whether the injured person qualifies as an insured in the first place. A sufficient connection between an injury and vehicle use cannot create coverage when the claimant falls outside the policy’s definition of an insured.
For employees using company vehicles insured in an LLC’s name, coverage may depend on the policy’s precise occupancy language. Being near or returning to a covered vehicle does not establish coverage when the claimant concedes that she was not occupying it as the policy defines that term.