Legal Opinion
White v. White
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 30, 2004No. A03-1315Published
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge. *
In challenging the district court’s grant of summary judgment, appellant argues that Minn.Stat. § 170.54 (2002), the Safety Responsibility Act, provides coverage to respondent granddaughter as operator of the vehicle in which appellant was injured, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the injury respondent son, owner of the vehicle, was himself operating the vehicle. Because we conclude that respondent son was the sole operator of the vehicle at the time of the injury, Minn.Stat. § 170.54 is inapplicable under the facts of this case, and we affirm.
FACTS
Responden…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kersten v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Occhino v. GroverCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
- Progressive Specialty Insurance Co. v. Widness Ex Rel. WidnessSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Wiegel v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.