§
Subdivision 1.Definition.
For the purposes of this section the term "authorized antitheft protection device" means a device provided by the manufacturer of a vehicle as original equipment or installed in a vehicle by the manufacturer of the vehicle or an authorized dealer of that manufacturer that does one or more of the following when activated unless the vehicle is entered and started by means of a lock system: (1) sound an alarm; (2) cause the vehicle horn to sound; (3) cause the vehicle lights to flash; or (4) cause the vehicle to be rendered inoperable. The device must be self-activating upon the locking of the passenger doors of the vehicle.
§
Subd. 2.Required reduction.
An insurer must provide an appropriate premium reduction of at least five percent on the comprehensive coverage on a policy of private passenger vehicle insurance, as defined in section 65B.001, subdivision 2, issued, delivered, or renewed in this state, to an insured whose vehicle is equipped with an authorized antitheft protection device. The premium reduction required by this subdivision applies to every vehicle of an insured that is equipped with an authorized antitheft protection device.
Notes of Decisions
Palmer v. Illinois Farmers Ins., 666 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 65B.285. The district court 1 granted motions to dismiss the complaints, and the insureds appeal.”
Hara v. USAA Cas. Ins., 820 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Minnesota 2011).
· cites it 13× “Minn.Stat. § 65B.285. Plaintiffs contend that their automobiles have antitheft devices, but that they did not receive the 5% discount.”
Luis v. RBC Capital Markets, LLC (D. Minnesota 2019).
· cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 65B.285, subdiv. 2 (“An insurer [must] provide an appropriate premium reduction of at least five percent on the comprehensive 11 It is undisputed that FINRA rules and guidance are not directly enforceable in federal court, by way of a private right of action.”
Graphic Commc'ns Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund \A\" v. CVS Caremark Corp.", 833 N.W.2d 403 (2013).
“2012) (declining under Minnesota law to permit insureds to bring breach-of-contract claims premised on violations of Minn.Stat. § 65B.285, in case in which insureds did not challenge district court’s conclusion that statute did not create private right of action); see also…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.