North Star Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ziebarth
Docket: No. C2-85-553
Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota; September 3, 1985; Minnesota; State Appellate Court
Michelle Ziebarth is appealing a summary judgment that ruled she was not an insured under her deceased father Alois J. Fischer's homeowner’s insurance policy. The North Star Mutual Insurance Company initiated a declaratory judgment asserting that Michelle was not covered against a claim from her husband, David Ziebarth, who suffered severe burns in an accident at the Fischer residence. The trial court granted the insurance company's motion for summary judgment based on its interpretation of the insurance contract. The central issue is whether Michelle qualifies as an insured under the policy's terms. The policy defines "you" as the named insured and their spouse, and "insured" includes residents of the household and relatives. Importantly, provision 6(c) states that if a named insured dies, their protection passes to their legal representative or another person with custody of covered property, with limited coverage regarding liability. The trial court interpreted this provision to mean that both Alois and his wife JoAnn must be deceased for Michelle to be considered an insured, which the appellate court found to be incorrect. The appellate court concluded that the policy's language allows for Michelle to be recognized as an insured upon her father's death, as each named individual is treated as a separate insured. As a result, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Respondent argues that Michelle Ziebarth is not covered under the policy because another individual was appointed as the legal representative of the estate. They interpret definition 6(c) to mean that coverage only passes to a legal representative or someone with temporary custody of the property before such an appointment. Respondent claims the policy is clear, stating that the use of "or" excludes those with temporary custody after a legal representative is appointed. Citing the Minnesota Supreme Court’s framework, the court must determine if the policy language is ambiguous, defined as being open to multiple interpretations. Respondent's interpretation allegedly creates ambiguity by not clarifying when each coverage scenario applies. Furthermore, the court emphasizes that any doubts regarding an insurance policy's meaning should favor the insured. The ruling concludes that Michelle Ziebarth qualifies as an insured under her father's homeowner's policy since she had proper, temporary custody of covered property following Alois Fischer's death. The previous decision is reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the appellants.