Jepson v. General Casualty Co. Of Wisconsin

513 N.W.2d 467 (1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P purchased a general liability automobile insurance contract through an agency in Minnesota, providing coverage from D. The named insureds were P and Deborah Jepson, National Muffler Shops, Inc., and National Muffler Warehouses, Inc. Their address was listed as 72 North Second Street, Fargo, North Dakota. this was the same as the Muffler Shop. National Muffler Shops, Inc. and National Muffler Warehouses, Inc. are North Dakota corporations that do business in North Dakota. Six of the seven vehicles were registered in North Dakota, and one was registered in Indiana. None were registered in Minnesota. Five were registered to the companies. A Corvette was registered to Deborah Jepson at the National Muffler Shops' address and a GMC pick-up truck was registered to P's nephew at the same address. The policy premium was calculated for North Dakota rates and paid by one of the corporations. Minnesota insurance rates were substantially higher. P testified that he specifically asked for underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage. The policy provided $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident for underinsured and uninsured coverage. The policy prohibits stacking of the underinsured and uninsured benefits. P and his wife were riding as passengers in a real estate agent's car in Arizona when they were involved in a traffic accident. The person who caused the accident had insurance with a liability limit of $250,000. Jepson settled with that individual for the policy limits. P also received $ 100,000 from the coverage on the car in which he was riding. P received no-fault benefits from D under the North Dakota no-fault law. P brought suit against D in North Dakota, claiming entitlement to North Dakota personal injury protection benefits. The lawsuit was settled prior to being filed in the district court. P brought a declaratory judgment action in Minnesota, seeking underinsured motorist benefits under the D policy, and insisting that those benefits be stacked. The trial court concluded that Minnesota law should be applied and that P would be allowed to stack benefits on all seven vehicles. P moved for amended findings which was denied. P appealed and it was affirmed.