Cited by

Co., 296 Minn. 181, 187 , ).

Co., 296 Minn. 181, 187 , (where insured separately purchased medical insurance to cover expenses actually incurred, without regard for fault or recovery from tortfeasor, insurer cannot use availability of that insurance to dilute uninsured motorist coverage).

The supreme court has stated that uninsured motorist coverage “is in effect a substitute for [the] insurance that the tort-feasor should have had.” Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Company, 296 Minn. 181, 189

See Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Company, 296 Minn. 181

Co., 296 Minn. 181 , was extended to UIM coverage, and the insured was permitted to stack the UIM coverage applicable to each covered vehicle.

Since 1973, however, when this court permitted the stacking of the uninsured motorist coverage of four separate policies issued to an insured, Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Company, 296 Minn. 181 , it has been the rule in Minnesota that first party coverages follow the person, not the vehicle, and that policy provisions designed to preclude recovery of first party benefits for which the insurer has collected a separate premium are contrary to public policy and are, therefore, void.

Finally, the cases cited for the proposition that an insurer should not “have a windfall in premiums for coverages not honored,” Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181 , do not stand for the opposite proposition that failure to pay a specified premium compels a finding of no coverage.

Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181

See also Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Company, 296 Minn. 181, 187 , (permitting stacking of uninsured motorist benefits when uninsured motorist coverage was mandatorily offered coverage: “But if the question must be resolved on the basis of who gets a windfall, it seems more just that the insured who paid a premium should get all he paid for rather th

Furthermore, should this court adopt the position urged by State Farm, the result would be contrary to that line of precedent established by Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181

Conceding that nothing in the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act expressly addresses the issue, the plaintiffs contend that the stated purpose of the No-Fault Act mandates application of the rationale on which Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181 , and the subsequent cases dealing with various forms of first party insurance coverage are based.

See, (stacking of basic economic-loss benefits requires the injured person to be insured under two or more policies applicable at the same priority level); (underinsured motorist coverage may be stacked); and Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181 , (pre-no-fault insurance, uninsured motorist benefits could be stacked).

See Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181, 189 , Brunmeier v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 296 Minn. 328, 334 , Taylor v. Great Central Insurance Co., 305 Minn. 446, 448-49

Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181, held that an insured who had uninsured motorist coverages on several automobiles with separate premiums paid for each can stack these coverages and that an "other insurance” or an excess insurance clause in the policy will not defeat stacking.

nce Co. v. State Farm Automobile & Casualty Underwriters Insurance Co., 307 Minn. 173 , (resident relative insured); Nygaard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 301 Minn. 10 , (resident relative insured); Pleitgen v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 296 Minn. 191 , (named insured); Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181 , (named insured).

Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181, 187 , -52 (1973)

See Nygaard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 301 Minn. 10 , (court voided exclusionary clause which precluded stacking of uninsured coverage when insured injured on motorcycle); Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181 , (court voided exclusionary clause in permitting stacking of uninsured benefits under the previous optional coverage requirement).

Co., 296 Minn. 181 , (insurance paid for by plaintiff should not benefit tortfeasor); *827 Local 1140, Int’l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach.

On May 11, 1973, approximately three months after the minor settlement was approved, this court decided Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181

See In re Pleitgen v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 296 Minn. 191 , Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Mutual Insurance Co., 296 Minn. 181