Cited by

n … of the construction or the improvement to real property” occurred when the insured ended the contract with the 8 general contractor Morningstar.4 The answer to this question is not immediately apparent because the statute does not define “termination.”5 Although we may look to dictionary definitions to determine the common and ordinary meaning of “termination,” doing so here would be futile because dictionaries do little to resolve the parties’ dispute.

If, after considering these principles, we conclude that the statute is “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation,” then it is ambiguous and we “may apply canons of construction to resolve the ambiguity.” (quoting 500, ).

Based on its common usage, “aggressive” means “[a]ssertive, bold, and energetic.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 33 (5th ed. 2018); see State v. Thonesavanh , (stating that if a statute does not provide a definition, we “look to dictionary definitions to determine the common and ordinary meanings of these terms”).

(stating that the rule of lenity “directs courts to favor a more lenient interpretation of a criminal statute” (quotation omitted)).

“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”

If the statute is ambiguous, “then we may apply the canons of construction to resolve the ambiguity.”

are construed according to [their] special meaning.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by, Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (“[T]echnical words and phrases .

If, however, the language of the statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, we apply the canons of construction to ascertain the statute’s meaning and “resolve the ambiguity.”

The first step in interpreting a statute “is to determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.” 6 (Minn. 2017).

“Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2024); -37 (Minn. 2017).

If the language is ambiguous, “then we may apply the canons of construction to resolve the ambiguity.”

(“We look beyond the plain language of the statutory or regulatory provision only if the text is ambiguous.”); n.4 (Minn. 2017) (rejecting the concurrence’s pre-ambiguity use of a post-ambiguity canon of construction).

Res., ( for the proposition that “in pari materia is [an] extrinsic canon that applies only to ambiguous statutes” and declining to construe several statutes together because this court concluded that the statutory language at issue was not ambiguous), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(“[T]he rule of lenity is a canon of last resort, applicable only when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, we are left with an ambiguous statute.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

(“[T]he rule of lenity is a canon of last resort, applicable only when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, we are left with an ambiguous statute.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Most relevant to our analysis is in pari materia, or the “related-statutes canon,” which “allows two statutes with common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language.” (quotation omitted).

(citing Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC, (“When a statute or a rule does not contain a definition of a word or phrase, we look to the common dictionary definition of the word or phrase to discover its plain and ordinary meaning.” (quotation omitted)).

12 (explaining that we construe “two statutes with common purposes and subject matter .

State v. Thonesavanh , (quotation omitted).

d 432, 435-36 (Minn. 2017).

When engaging in statutory interpretation, we first “determine whether the statute’s language, on its face, is ambiguous.”