§
Subdivision 1.Injury resulting from business use.
In case of injury to the driver or other occupant of a motor vehicle, if the accident causing the injury occurs while the vehicle is being used in the business of transporting persons or property, the security for payment of basic economic loss benefits is the security covering the vehicle or, if none, the security under which the injured person is an insured.
§
Subd. 1a.Exemptions.
Subdivision 1 does not apply to:
(1) a commuter van;
(2) a vehicle being used to transport children as part of a family or group family day care program;
(3) a vehicle being used to transport children to school or to a school-sponsored activity;
(4) a bus while it is in operation within the state of Minnesota as to any Minnesota resident who is an insured as defined in section 65B.43, subdivision 5;
(5) a passenger in a taxi; or
(6) a taxi driver, provided that this clause applies only to policies issued or renewed on or after September 1, 1996, and prior to September 1, 1997.
§
Subd. 2.Injury resulting from use of vehicle provided by employer.
In case of injury to an employee, or to the employee's spouse or other relative residing in the same household, if the accident causing the injury occurs while the injured person is driving or occupying a motor vehicle other than a commuter van furnished by the employer, the security for payment of basic economic loss benefits is the security covering the vehicle or, if none, the security under which the injured person is an insured.
§
Subd. 3.Injury to other persons.
In the case of any other person whose injury arises from the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle described in subdivision 1 or 2 who is not a driver or occupant of another involved motor vehicle, the security for the payment of basic economic loss benefits is the security covering the vehicle, or if none, the security under which the injured person is an insured.
§
Subd. 4.Other cases.
In all other cases, the following priorities apply:
(a) The security for payment of basic economic loss benefits applicable to injury to an insured is the security under which the injured person is an insured.
(b) The security for payment of basic economic loss benefits applicable to injury to the driver or other occupant of an involved motor vehicle who is not an insured is the security covering that vehicle.
(c) The security for payment of basic economic loss benefits applicable to injury to a person not otherwise covered who is not the driver or other occupant of an involved motor vehicle is the security covering any involved motor vehicle. An unoccupied parked vehicle is not an involved motor vehicle unless it was parked so as to cause unreasonable risk of injury.
§
Subd. 5.Contribution.
If two or more obligations to pay basic economic loss benefits are applicable to an injury under the priorities set out in this section, benefits are payable only once and the reparation obligor against whom a claim is asserted shall process and pay the claim as if wholly responsible, but the reparation obligor is thereafter entitled to recover contribution pro rata for the basic economic loss benefits paid and the costs of processing the claim. Where contribution is sought among reparation obligors responsible under subdivision 4, clause (c), proration shall be based on the number of involved motor vehicles.
§
Subd. 6.Subrogation.
Where a reparation obligor pays basic economic loss benefits which another reparation obligor is obligated to pay under the priority provided in this section, the reparation obligor that pays is subrogated to all rights of the person to whom benefits are paid.
§
Subd. 7.Adding policies together.
Unless a policyholder makes a specific election to have two or more policies added together the limit of liability for basic economic loss benefits for two or more motor vehicles may not be added together to determine the limit of insurance coverage available to an injured person for any one accident. An insurer shall notify policyholders that they may elect to have two or more policies added together.
Notes of Decisions
Meister v. W. Nat'l Mut. Ins., 479 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. 1992).
· cites it 48× “The trial court predicated its conclusion on the applicability of the business vehicle priority section of Minn.Stat. § 65B.47, subd. 1 (1988), which determines the payment source of basic economic loss benefits.”
Balderrama v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 324 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 1982).
· cites it 36× “Plaintiff Jaime Balderrama claims a right to basic economic loss benefits under the priorities provision of the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act (the Act), Minn.Stat. § 65B.47 (1980). The district court denied the claim, granting the motion of defendant Milbank Mutual…”
Wasche v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 268 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 1978).
· cites it 14× “Therefore, § 65B.47 provides a series of priorities which determine the insurance policy to which the injured person must look for recovery of no-fault basic economic loss benefits.”
Pususta v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 632 N.W.2d 549 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 32× “For example, the statute provides that if a person is insured in a vehicle provided by his employer, basic economic loss benefits are to be provided by the insurance carrier covering the vehicle, or, if none, the carrier covering the injured person.”
W. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 374 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. 1985).
· cites it 24× “Western claimed that State Farm's obligation took precedence over Western's obligation, at priority level 4(a) of Minn.Stat. § 65B.47, because State Farm was licensed to sell automobile insurance in Minnesota.”
Pecinovsky v. AMCO Ins. Co., 613 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 22× “Respondents contend that stacking should occur by operation of law because appellant did not offer the stacking option as required by Minn.Stat. § 65B.47, subd. 7 (1998). A jury concluded that appellant failed to offer stacking to respondents, and the district court read…”
Home Mut. Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 356 N.W.2d 780 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 16× “Home Mutual thereby retained its right to be reimbursed by any no-fault carrier found to have priority coverage under Minn.Stat. 65B.47 (1982). Home Mutual paid Strike’s no-fault benefits and began this declaratory judgment action to determine the application of the “employee…”
Reed v. Cont'l W. Ins. Co., 374 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. 1985).
· cites it 28× “47) for no-fault benefits when one of its insureds sustained personal injuries while in a Minnesota accident at a time she was operating a non-owned vehicle, and at a time one or more of the insured vehicles was not in the State of Minnesota.”
Roepke v. W. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 302 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. 1981).
· cites it 8× “In Wasche , the relevant priority level was Minn.Stat. § 65B.47, subd. 4(a) (1978): “The security for payment of basic economic loss benefits applicable to injury to an insured is the security under which the injured person is an insured.”
Koons v. Nat'l Fam. Ins. Co., 301 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 1981).
· cites it 14× “The parties agree that the statute applicable to this case is Minn.Stat. § 65B.47 (1978). That section is part of the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act and it specifies the priorities that determine which policy or policies must be the source for payment of basic…”
Davidson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. of Bloomington, 373 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 24× “Finally, the trial court determined that all six vehicles driven by the Davidson family were of the same priority level pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 65B.47 (1982), and the court allowed stacking of economic loss benefits for the six vehicles.”
— Minn. Stat. § 65B.47(4)(a) — 4 cases
W. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 374 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. 1985).
“Western claimed that State Farm's obligation took precedence over Western's obligation, at priority level 4(a) of Minn.Stat. § 65B.47, because State Farm was licensed to sell automobile insurance in Minnesota.”
— Minn. Stat. § 65B.47(4)(b) — 1 case
W. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 374 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. 1985).
“Western claimed that State Farm's obligation took precedence over Western's obligation, at priority level 4(a) of Minn.Stat. § 65B.47, because State Farm was licensed to sell automobile insurance in Minnesota.”
— Minn. Stat. § 65B.47(5) — 1 case
Koons v. Nat'l Fam. Ins. Co., 301 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 1981).
“The parties agree that the statute applicable to this case is Minn.Stat. § 65B.47 (1978). That section is part of the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act and it specifies the priorities that determine which policy or policies must be the source for payment of basic…”
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.