Shawn Halvorson v. Kristopher Todd From, Reliance Leasing, Inc., d/b/a Avis Rent A Car ( 2015 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-2116
Shawn Halvorson,
Appellant,
vs.
Kristopher Todd From,
Defendant,
Reliance Leasing, Inc.,
d/b/a Avis Rent A Car, et al.,
Respondents.
Filed August 17, 2015
Affirmed
Schellhas, Judge
Clay County District Court
File No. 14-CV-14-1878
Michael Fargione, Tanner J. Moe, McEllistrem, Fargione, Landy, Rorvig & Eken, P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
William L. Davidson, Brian A. Wood, Peter D. Stiteler, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan &
Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Schellhas,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of his declaratory-
judgment action involving a dispute over insurance coverage. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Shawn Halvorson was a backseat passenger in a rental vehicle that was
involved in a single vehicle roll-over accident. Halvorson allegedly sustained injuries as a
result of the accident. Respondent Reliance Leasing Inc. owned the vehicle, respondent
National Interstate Insurance Company insured the vehicle, and Kari Dahlgren rented the
vehicle under a rental agreement. Kristopher From was driving the vehicle when the
accident occurred. The parties dispute whether From had Dahlgren’s permission to drive
the vehicle, but no one disputes that From was not listed as an “additional driver” on the
rental agreement.
Halvorson commenced a declaratory-judgment action against From, Reliance
Leasing, and National Interstate, seeking a declaration that “From was an insured under
the motor vehicle insurance policy issued by . . . National Interstate.” Reliance Leasing
and National Interstate moved for summary judgment, arguing that From was not an
insured under the terms of the vehicle’s insurance policy and that Halvorson lacked
standing to bring the action because he had not obtained a judgment against From and
had no rights under the insurance policy. The district court granted the motion and
dismissed Halvorson’s complaint, determining that Halvorson lacked standing to bring an
action against National Interstate and Reliance Leasing.
2
This appeal follows.
DECISION
Halvorson concedes on appeal that From was not an insured under the vehicle’s
insurance policy because From was neither the renter of the vehicle nor an additional
driver authorized to drive the vehicle under the rental agreement. Halvorson
acknowledges that he no longer is seeking the declaration requested in his complaint.
Instead, Halvorson asserts a theory involving reparation security insurance coverage and
seeks a declaration that Reliance Leasing “is required by . . . Minnesota statutes to
provide $30,000 in liability coverage” for his injuries.
Halvorson did not attempt to amend his complaint in district court to request the
declaration that he now seeks, and the court based its summary-judgment decision on the
relief that Halvorson requested in his complaint. We decline to analyze whether
Halvorson is entitled to the declaration that he now seeks. See Thiele v. Stich, 425
N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (“A reviewing court must generally consider only those
issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding
the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)); Roberge v. Cambridge Coop. Creamery Co.,
243 Minn. 230, 233–34, 67 N.W.2d 400, 403 (1954) (stating that the rules of civil
procedure are “very liberal” in permitting the amendment of pleadings and that “[w]here
a party fails to take advantage of this procedure, he is bound by the pleadings unless the
other issues are litigated by consent”).
Affirmed.
3