§
Subdivision 1.Qualifications.
A person entitled to basic economic loss benefits because of injury covered by sections 65B.41 to 65B.71 may obtain basic economic loss benefits through the assigned claims plan or bureau established pursuant to section 65B.63 and in accordance with the provisions for making assigned claims provided in sections 65B.41 to 65B.71, if:
(a) the person is 14 years old or younger and basic economic loss benefits are not applicable to the injury because of section 65B.58;
(b) basic economic loss benefits are not applicable to the injury for some reason other than those specified in section 65B.58, 65B.59, or 65B.60;
(c) the plan of reparation security applicable to the injury cannot be identified; or
(d) a claim for basic economic loss benefits is rejected by a reparation obligor on some ground other than the person is not entitled to basic economic loss benefits under sections 65B.41 to 65B.71.
In addition to the requirements for eligibility contained in section 65B.48, a nonresident is not entitled to basic economic loss benefits if the nonresident is the owner of a motor vehicle and does not carry the minimum automobile insurance coverage required by the state in which the vehicle is registered.
§
Subd. 2.Indemnification and subrogation rights.
If a claim qualifies for assignment under subdivision 1, the assigned claims bureau or any reparation obligor to whom the claim is assigned shall have the right to seek indemnification from an uninsured tortfeasor. Except as otherwise provided in section 340A.801, subdivision 4, the reparation obligor to whom the claim is assigned shall further be subrogated to all of the rights of the claimant against any person for economic loss benefits provided by the obligor to whom the claim was assigned, including a transportation network company or participating driver required to provide basic economic loss benefits pursuant to section 65B.472.
§
Subd. 3.Disqualification.
A person shall not be entitled to basic economic loss benefits through the assigned claims plan with respect to injury which was sustained if at the time of such injury the injured person was the owner of a private passenger motor vehicle for which security is required under sections 65B.41 to 65B.71 and that person failed to have such security in effect.
For purposes of determining whether security is required under section 65B.48, an owner of any vehicle is deemed to have contemplated the operation or use of the vehicle at all times unless the owner demonstrates to the contrary by clear and convincing objective evidence.
Persons, whether or not related by blood or marriage, who dwell and function together with the owner as a family, other than adults who have been adjudicated as incompetent and minor children, shall also be disqualified from benefits through the assigned claims plan.
Notes of Decisions
Mickelson v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 329 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 58× “[1] Mickelson's claim was assigned to Mutual Service, which denied the claim on the ground that, pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 65B.64, subd. 3 (1982) [2] , Mickelson was disqualified from benefits.”
Paek Saengkeo v. Minnesota Auto. Assigned Claims, 877 N.W.2d 568 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 88× “3 (2014), the assigned claims plan, an injured passenger of an uninsured vehicle is not entitled to economic loss benefits if the injured passenger is dwelling with a family member who is an uninsured owner of a vehicle that must be insured under Minn.”
Dahle v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Ins. Co., 352 N.W.2d 397 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 14× “Under Minn.Stat. § 65B.64, subd. 1 (1982), an individual is entitled to participate in the assigned claims plan if any one of the following four criteria is met: 1) The individual is 14 years old or younger and is precluded from recovering basic economic loss benefits because he…”
Kaysen v. Fed. Ins. Co., 268 N.W.2d 920 (Minn. 1978).
· cites it 4× “Mutual, the assignee under the assigned claims plan, contends that plaintiffs' guardian is precluded from recovery under the plan by virtue of § 65B.64, subd. 3, which provides: "A person shall not be entitled to basic economic loss benefits through the assigned claims plan with…”
Mohs v. Parrish's Bar, 418 N.W.2d 494 (Minn. 1988).
· cites it 10× “” Minn.Stat. § 65B.64, subd. 1. After a claim is made, the MAACB assigns it to a member insurer.”
Kvitek v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 438 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 12× “1 (1980) prohibited him from recovering no-fault economic loss benefits under Minn.Stat. § 65B.64, subd. 1 (1980). We reverse and remand.”
Harris v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 480 N.W.2d 690 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 12× “Minn.Stat. § 65B.64, subd. 3 (1986). Following an automobile accident, Harris applied to respondent American Family Mutual Insurance Company for benefits under the assigned claims plan.”
Balderrama v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 324 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 1982).
· cites it 4× “Their recourse is the assigned claims plan, Minn.Stat. § 65B.64 (1980). Subdivision 3 of this provision reads: A person shall not be entitled to basic economic loss benefits through the assigned claims plan with respect to injury which was sustained if at the time of such injury…”
Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vanman, 453 N.W.2d 48 (Minn. 1990).
· cites it 5× “63, and we held that Minn.Stat. § 65B.64, subd. 2 (1988), limits the subro-gation rights of a reparation obligor to which a claim has been assigned to those statutory subrogation rights held by no- *50 fault insurers generally.”
Iverson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 295 N.W.2d 573 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “§ 65B.64, subd. 3. It is clear under the Act that one who owns a single vehicle and is injured in an accident with that vehicle but has not obtained the required insurance may not recover basic economic loss benefits.”
Petrich Ex Rel. Lee v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 427 N.W.2d 244 (Minn. 1988).
· cites it 2× “See also Minn.Stat. § 65B.64, subd. 3 (1986) (the member of the household of an uninsured owner, if a minor, is not disqualified for economic loss benefits under the assigned claims plan).”
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.