Injured Pedestrian not "Insured" under Father's UM Policy

In Carlson v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2008 WL 2131345 (Minn.), a pedestrian who was walking across a road shortly after exiting his father's vehicle was struck by an uninsured vehicle. He brought an action against his father's insurer and assigned servicing carrier for the Assigned Claims Bureau, seeking damages under his father's policy's uninsured motorist provisions. On the policy, the father and his wife were listed as the named insureds, and the injured pedestrian son was listed as the primary driver of a vehicle leased in his father's name. The insureds and son brought the action seeking no-fault and uninsured motorist benefits, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The insureds appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. The insureds sought further review, which was granted.

 The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the holding. In its decision, the court first addressed the question of what coverage the policy by its terms afforded the insureds. The court explained that the policy provided uninsured motorist coverage to "an insured person" for damages that such person is legally entitled to recover from an uninsured motorist. "Insured person" was defined to include "You," and "You" in turn was defined as "the policyholder named on the Policy Declarations." The insureds relied on the fact that the declarations page nowhere used the term "policyholder" but rather identified "named insureds" and "drivers." The insureds argued that a reasonable person in their position would conclude that "policyholder" included the drivers listed on the declarations page. The insurer responded that a reasonable person would understand that "policyholder" referred to the "named insureds" rather than to the "drivers."