Kersten v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co.

I respectfully dissent. The majority’s holding violates fundamental principles of insurance law relating to indemnification of a defined risk and misconstrues the statutory provisions that it relies upon to conclude that coverage is compelled.

The operative facts are that respondent was treated for depression and anxiety in 1974. Minnesota Mutual issued a disability insurance policy to respondent on October 18, 1985. The policy, which was approved by the Commissioner of Commerce,3 included coverage for “sickness,” defined as “[a] disease or illness which first manifests itself while this…