Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota; May 9, 1986; Minnesota; State Supreme Court
North Star Mutual Insurance Company (North Star) sought review of a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that determined Michelle Ziebarth was an insured under her deceased father Alois Fischer's homeowner’s insurance policy. The court of appeals had overturned a trial court ruling that found no coverage under the policy. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision, reinstating the district court's judgment.
Alois Fischer had a homeowner’s policy issued to him on June 26, 1981, covering his residence in Marshall, Minnesota, where he lived with his second wife, JoAnn, and his two minor sons from a previous marriage. Alois died on December 13, 1981. Following his funeral, Michelle Ziebarth, his daughter from a prior marriage, temporarily stayed at the residence to care for her brothers and assist in sorting through her father's belongings at the request of personal representatives JoAnn and Diane Doom.
On January 9, 1982, an accident occurred in which Michelle's husband, David, suffered severe burns while trying to assist her with a frying pan of hot oil. He subsequently filed a claim against Michelle, asserting that she was an insured under the homeowner’s policy.
North Star initiated a declaratory judgment action, asserting that Michelle was not covered by the policy. The district court granted North Star summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed this decision, leading to North Star's petition for further review.
The case hinged on the interpretation of a provision in the policy stating that if the insured dies, coverage passes to a legal representative or another person with proper, temporary custody of covered property. Michelle argued she qualified as such a person due to her temporary role at the residence. However, the court found this provision inapplicable. According to the policy, "you" referred specifically to the named insured, Alois, and his spouse, JoAnn. Because JoAnn survived Alois and retained custody of the property, there was no need for the coverage transfer to apply, as she was already an insured.
Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the provision for transferring coverage was not triggered in this case and reversed the appellate decision, reinstating the district court’s ruling that Michelle was not an insured under the homeowner’s policy. Justice Yetka dissented.
