Lierboe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

¶24 The Court has declined to answer Judge Molloy’s first certified question for the reason that it finds the second certified question dispositive. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding on the second certified question and from its resulting refusal to address the first certified question.

¶25 The majority concludes that the clear, unambiguous language of the “no coverage” provision precludes Lierboe from recovering under both policies. The Court states:

Ruckdaschel does not apply in this case because Lierboe’s accident in her Jeep was covered by only a single policy. Therefore,…