Bentley S. Poitra, et al.,

1
STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

A20-0491

Court of Appeals McKeig, J.

Bentley S. Poitra, et al.,

Appellants,

vs. Filed: November 24, 2021
Office of Appellate Courts
Emily Short, et al.,

Respondents,

North Star Mutual Insurance

Respondent.

________________________

Matthew J. Barber, James S. Ballentine, Robert L. Lazear, Schwebel Goetz & Sieben, P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants.

Joseph M. Bromeland, Bromeland Law, LLC, Mankato, Minnesota; and

Kevin F. Gray, Matthew W. Moehrle, Rajkowski Hansmeier, Ltd., St. Cloud, Minnesota,
for respondent North Star Mutual Insurance.

Beth A. Jenson-Prouty, Arthur Chapman Kettering Smetak & Pikala, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for amici curiae American Property Casualty Insurance Association and The
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.

Dale O. Thornsjo, Lance D. Meyer, O’Meara, Leer, Wagner & Kohl, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for amicus curiae The Insurance Federation of Minnesota.

________________________
2
S Y L L A B U S
A resident-relative exclusion in a homeowner’s insurance policy is enforceable
because it does not violate public policy.
Affirmed.
O P I N I O N
MCKEIG, Justice.
This case involves the enforceability of a resident-relative exclusion in a
homeowner’s insurance policy. Appellants Justen and Debra Poitra, on behalf of Bentley
Poitra (“the Poitras”), filed a declaratory judgment action against respondent North Star
Mutual Insurance (“North Star”) after North Star denied their claim for homeowner’s
insurance benefits arising from serious injuries inflicted on Bentley by a pet dog at his
grandparents’ residence. The Poitras claimed that resident-relative exclusions, like that
cited by North Star as the basis for denying coverage for Bentley, frustrate the purpose of
our abolition of intrafamilial tort immunities and are inconsistent with the promise of
redress in the Minnesota Constitution. The district court rejected the Poitras’ argument
and granted North Star’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court of appeals
affirmed. On appeal, t he Poitras reassert that the resident-relative exclusion in the North
Star homeowner’s insurance policy is not enforceable for reasons of public policy.
Because p recluding liability is different than excluding coverage, resident-relative
exclusions do not frustrate the purpose behind our abolition of intrafamilial tort immunities.
Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.
3
FACTS
Two-year-old Bentley Poitra resided with his grandparents, Jamie and Emily Short
(“the Shorts”), in March 2014. On March 18, 2014, Bentley was violently attacked by the
Shorts’ Alaskan Malamute dog. This attack caused Bentley significant injuries, including
bites to his face, head, and right eye. As a result of the dog’s bites, the Poitras allege that
Bentley suffered several permanent injuries, including ruptured globe penetration, skull
fractures, scalp and facial lacerations, and blindness in his right eye.
The Shorts had a homeowner’s insurance policy in effect, through North Star, on
the date of the attack. The North Star policy contained a resident-relative exclusion, which
provided that coverage for personal liability does not apply to
“bodily injury” to “you,” and if residents of “your” household, “your”
relatives and person(s) under the age of 21 in “your” care or in the care of
“your” resident relatives.

An “insured” is defined as “you” and residents of “your” household who are “(a) ‘your’
spouse; (b) ‘your’ relatives; or (c) persons, other than ‘your’ relatives, under the age of 21
years and in ‘your’ care or in the care of ‘your’ resident relatives.”
Bentley’s father, Justen Poitra, and his paternal grandmother, Debra Poitra, filed a
claim on Bentley’s behalf under the North Star policy. North Star denied the claim for
Bentley’s injuries because he was a resident-relative of the Short household.
The Poitras subsequently commenced a declaratory judgment action in Crow Wing
County District Court, seeking a declaration voiding the resident-relative exclusion in the
Shorts’ policy. The Poitras did not dispute that the exclusion, as written, applies to bar
coverage for Bentley’s injuries, but argued that the exclusion is void because it violates
4
public policy. North Star moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). North Star argued that the resident-relative
exclusion is enforceable and prevents Bentley’s recovery under the policy. The district
court agreed and granted North Star’s motion to dismiss.
The Poitras appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding the resident-
relative exclusion valid and enforceable. The court of appeals affirmed. Poitra v. Short,
No. A20-0491, 2020 WL 7689593, at *2 (Minn. App. Dec. 28, 2020). The court of appeals
determined that no statute invalidates the exclusion and that, contrary to the Poitras’
assertion, Minnesota case law definitively establishes the validity of resident-relative
exclusions. Id. at *1–2.
The Poitras sought further review. We granted review on the issue of whether
resident-relative exclusions in homeowner’s insurance policies are enforceable.
ANALYSIS
We review de novo dismissals under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 663
N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn. 2003). The claim in this case centers on the validity and
enforceability of the resident-relative exclusion in North Star’s policy. This is a question
of law we likewise review de novo. Lobeck v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 582 N.W.2d
246, 249 (Minn. 1998).
Both parties claim that we have already spoken on th e validity of resident-relative
exclusions, yet they arrive at opposite conclusions. The Poitras argue that we invalidated
resident-relative exclusions in Hime v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., citing language in
5
our opinion that “the courts and legislature of this state have condemned household
immunity clauses” and that the social gain of providing financial protection to injured
family members “transcends the arguable social loss of impairing insurance contract
provisions that provide for familial exclusions.” 284 N.W.2d 829, 833–34 (Minn. 1979).
Conversely, North Star points to American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ryan,
where we upheld a resident-relative exclusion while stating the “well-settled” rule of
insurance contracts that “parties are free to contract as they desire, and so long as coverage
required by law is not omitted and policy provisions do not contravene applicable statutes,
the extent of the insurer’s liability is governed by the contract entered into.” 330 N.W.2d
113, 115 (Minn. 1983). North Star argues that we reaffirmed our decisi on to uphold
resident-relative exclusions in Reinsurance Association of Minnesota v. Hanks, where we
rejected the argument that an exclusionary clause was “void as violative of public policy,”
stating that “[ i]n previous holdings involving comparable facts, we have given effect to
such clauses.” 539 N.W.2d 793, 797 (Minn. 1995).
No case offered by either party is directly on point. Hime involved an automobile
insurance policy, thereby implicating public policy as prescribed by the Legislature
through statute. See Hime, 284 N.W.2d at 831–32.1 Conversely, although we upheld a

1 In Hime, we noted that a no-fault automobile insurance statute prohibited household
or family exclusions in automobile insurance coverage. Hime, 284 N.W.2d at 833 (citing
Minn. Stat. § 65B.23 (1971), repealed, Act of Apr. 11, 1974, c h. 408, § 33, 1974 Minn.
Laws 762, 786). Though we decided the case in 1979, the accident at issue took place in
1972, prior to the statute’s repeal. Because the Legislature had clearly spoken on the issue
in the language of the statute, the question we resolved in Hime was whether to apply
Florida or Minnesota law, not whether resident-relative exclusions are generally
(Footnote continued on next page.)
6
resident-relative exclusion in a homeowner’s insurance policy in Ryan, we emphasized
that, because our ruling in Anderson v. Stream, 295 N.W.2d 595 (Minn. 1980), abolishing
parent-child immunity was decided after Ryan’s injury, the parties could not avail
themselves of the holding in that case. Ryan, 330 N.W.2d at 115. Thus, we did not explain
in Ryan what impact the abolition of tort immunities would have, if any, on resident-
relative exclusions. Ryan, 330 N.W.2d at 115. Finally, in Hanks , though we used broad
language in upholding a resident-relative exclusion, that exclusion was not directly at issue.
Hanks, 539 N.W.2d at 797 (finding coverage for a non-resident family member excluded
based on a minor-in-the -care-of-the-insured provision). Therefore, we have not directly
addressed the enforceability of resident-relative exclusions following the abolition of
intrafamilial tort immunities.
Having determined that we have not previously addressed the issue, we now turn to
the Poitras’ argument that we should invalidate resident-relative exclusions as a matter of
public policy. The thrust of the Poitras’ argument is that the abolition of intrafamilial tort
immunities was meant to permit injured parties to recover through insurance funds, and
that resident-relative exclusions should be invalidated as an attempt to circumvent the
abolition of those immunities.
In the 1960s, we began abolishing intrafamilial tort immunities. See, e.g., Balts v.
Balts, 142 N.W.2d 66, 73–75 (Minn. 1966) (rejecting immunity for a child in a suit brought
by a parent); Beaudette v. Frana, 173 N.W.2d 416, 420 (Minn. 1969) (abrogating

unenforceable. See id . Here, no statute prohibited household or family exclusions in
homeowner’s insurance at the time of Bentley’s injury.
7
interspousal immunity); Anderson, 295 N.W.2d at 601 (abolishing parental immunity);
Lickteig v. Kolar, 782 N.W.2d 810, 818 (Min n. 2010) (rejecting sibling immunity). The
availability of liability insurance is discussed in some of these decisions. In Balts, we
reasoned that “where a child is protected by liability insurance there is more likelihood of
friction, resentment, and discord by a parent’s failure to assert a claim than by instituting
suit.” Balts, 142 N.W.2d at 73. We also noted that the presence of liability insurance
would be “an important, if not decisive, factor in deciding whether an intrafamily action
will be commenced.” Id. The Poitras argue that these statements articulate public policy
that justifies invalidating resident-relative insurance exclusions.
The Poitras extend our reasoning too far. As several other jurisdictions have already
held, abolishing judicially created immunities is fundamentally different than requiring
insurers to provide coverage for resident-relatives that their insureds injure. See, e.g. ,
Howe v. Howe, 625 S.E.2d 716, 724 (W. Va. 2005) (differentiating between intrafamilial
immunities “precluding liability” and insurance contracts “excluding coverage”); Faraj v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 486 A.2d 582, 585 (R.I. 1984) (holding that abolishing intrafamilial
immunities only determines the right of action between family members and not the
validity of insurance exclusions); see also RLI Ins. Co. v. Heling, 520 N.W.2d 849, 851–
52 (N.D. 1994); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elwell, 513 A.2d 269, 273 (Me. 1986).2 In the former,
we are eliminating common-law hurdles of our own creation. In the latter, we would be

2 We have been unable to find a decision by any state court that has judicially
invalidated resident-relative exclusions in homeowner’s insurance policies.

8
stepping into contracts between two parties and invalidating otherwise agreed-upon
exclusions.
We have struck down contractual provisions that contravene public policy. See
Yang v. Voyagaire Houseboats, Inc., 701 N.W.2d 783, 792 (Minn. 2005) (holding an
indemnification clause in a rental agreement void as violative of public policy as it shifted
liability to the guests Voyagaire had a duty to protect). But this power should be exercised
solely in cases where the contract is “injurious to the interests of the public or contravenes
some established interest of society.” In re Peterson’s Est ., 42 N.W.2d 59, 63 (Minn.
1950).
Such a case does not exist here. While the Poitras present compelling arguments
about the injustices of denying family members recovery solely because of their
relationship to the person who injured them, North Star presents compelling
counterarguments that invalidating resident- relative exclusions may increase insurance
rates, price out people who need coverage, and encourage collusive claims. We are not the
appropriate body to balance the competing policy arguments raised by the Poitras and
North Star. “[L]egislative bodies are institutionally better positioned than courts to sort
out conflicting interests and information surrounding complex public policy issues.” State
v. Khalil, 956 N.W.2d 627, 633 (Minn. 2021).
3

3 In fact, the Legislature has recently considered invalidating resident-relative
exclusions. House File No. 476, a bill introduced in the Minnesota Legislature in 2019,
would have voided all family exclusions in boat and personal liability umbrella policies
had it passed. See H.F. 476, 91st Minn. Leg. 2019.
9
The Poitras are correct that injured parties are guaranteed redress under the
Minnesota Constitution. See Minn. Const. art. I, § 8. We cited to this right as part of our
rationale for abolishing tort immunities. See Anderson, 295 N.W.2d at 600 (finding that
abolishing intrafamilial immunities promotes the “fundamental concept of our legal system
and a right guaranteed by our state constitution, . . . that a remedy be afforded to those who
have been injured due to the conduct of another”). But the right to redress of injuries or
wrongs under the Minnesota Constitution does not guarantee access to a particular source
of funds.
Based on our analysis, we hold that the resident-relative exclusion in the North Star
homeowner’s insurance policy is enforceable.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

Affirmed.