Legal Opinion · Dissent

Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Perry

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 29, 2008No. A06-1235Published

1DissentPage, Justice

Today, the court misinterprets the definition of “dependent” under Minnesota’s No-Fault Act, Minn.Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6 (2006). In doing so, the court ignores the language of the statute and the legislative intent behind the statute and its subsequent amendment. Further, the court’s interpretation undermines an important purpose of the Act and will lead to absurd results. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Minnesota’s No-Fault Act states:

Survivors economic loss benefits, in the event of death occurring within one year of the date of the accident, caused by and arising out of injuries…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Current Technology Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  2. Dahle v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  3. Peevy v. Mutual Services Casualty Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  4. School Sisters of Notre Dame at Mankato, Minnesota, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API