Minnesota Court of Appeals Holds A Vehicle Shielded by Official Immunity Is An Uninsured Motor Vehicle Under The No-Fault Act

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently issued a precedential opinion regarding whether a county vehicle shielded by official immunity is considered an uninsured motor vehicle under the No-Fault Act.

In James W. Honcik v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I.,, Appellant Honcik was injured when a snowplow operated by a Norman County employee collided with his car. Honcik sued the county for damages. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the county based on common-law official immunity, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Honcik then sought uninsured motorist benefits under his automobile insurance policy. Honcik argued the snowplow was an “uninsured vehicle” because Norman County did not have insurance coverage for torts from which it was shielded by official immunity. American Family argued, and the district court agreed, that the successful assertion of a liability defense does not convert the snowplow into an uninsured vehicle.

Honcik appealed, arguing the district court erred by ignoring the effect of common-law official immunity and the language of the No-Fault Act, which defines “uninsured motor vehicle” as a motor vehicle “for which a plan of reparation security meeting the requirements of [the No-Fault Act] is not in effect.” Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 16. The No-Fault Act defines “plan of reparation security” as “a contract, self-insurance, or other legal means under which there is an obligation to pay the benefits described in section 65B.49.” Id., subd. 15. Common-law official immunity shields “individual government actors” from personal liability for injuries caused by discretionary acts within the course of their official duties. Kariniemi v. City of Rockford, 882 N.W.2d 593, 599-600 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

The question of whether an uninsured motor vehicle includes one for which no coverage is available due to an official immunity defense was one of first impression for the Court of Appeals. The court agreed with Honcik and held the snowplow was an uninsured motor vehicle per under the No-Fault Act definition because there was no plan of reparation security in effect providing coverage for the snowplow because the county was shielded by official immunity. As a result, Honcik was allowed to pursue his UM claim against American Family.

We will continue to monitor this case, in the event of an appeal, and other cases pertaining to no-fault, UM, and UIM coverages.

Please contact us with  any questions regarding this case.