## Facts

- Krista Lisbon lost control of a vehicle on an icy Interstate 80 in Nebraska and slid into a ditch.
- Brent Rasmussen stopped on the shoulder to assist Lisbon and attempted to help free her vehicle.
- As Rasmussen walked back toward his vehicle to retrieve a towrope, another driver lost control and slid off the roadway, striking Rasmussen and vehicles at the scene.
- Rasmussen suffered severe injuries, including amputation of his left foot.
- The Lisbon vehicle was insured under a State Farm policy issued to Lisbon’s parents (the “Bosch policy”); Rasmussen also had a State Farm policy (the “Rasmussen policy”).
- State Farm paid $100,000 in underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under the Rasmussen policy but denied UIM coverage under the Bosch policy.
- The Rasmussens sued Lisbon for negligence under the rescue doctrine and sued State Farm for coverage under the Bosch policy.

## Issues

1. Whether choice-of-law principles required applying Michigan law to interpret the Bosch policy and, under that law and policy language, whether Rasmussen qualified as an insured entitled to UIM coverage.
2. Whether Lisbon owed Rasmussen a duty of care and whether Nebraska’s rescue doctrine permits a rescuer to sue the person being rescued when that person’s negligence created the peril.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for State Farm on the Bosch policy coverage claim.
- Held Nebraska choice-of-law rules supported applying Michigan law to the Bosch policy.
- Concluded Rasmussen did not meet the Bosch policy’s definition of an insured and was not entitled to coverage under that policy.
- Reversed summary judgment for Lisbon on the negligence claim.
- Held Lisbon owed a duty of reasonable care that can extend to foreseeable rescuers.
- Held Nebraska’s rescue doctrine can support a rescuer’s negligence claim against the rescued person when the rescued person’s negligence created the danger that prompted the rescue.
- Remanded for further proceedings because material factual disputes remained regarding negligence, causation, and comparative fault.

## Legal Principles

- Insurance contract interpretation is a question of law; an appellate court independently reviews the policy’s meaning and the legal effect of its terms.
- For multistate insurance disputes, Nebraska applies the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the contract; the issuing state’s law may govern even if the accident occurred in Nebraska.
- Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed favorably to the nonmovant.
- Under Nebraska negligence law, drivers owe a duty of reasonable care, and foreseeable rescue efforts may fall within the scope of risks created by negligent conduct.
- Nebraska’s rescue doctrine is not limited to suits against third parties; it can allow a rescuer to recover from the person rescued if that person’s negligence created the peril that invited rescue.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed that State Farm owed no additional UIM coverage under the out-of-state Bosch policy because Rasmussen was not an insured under the governing law, but it reinstated Rasmussen’s negligence claim by holding that Nebraska’s rescue doctrine may permit a rescuer to sue the rescued person whose negligence created the danger that prompted the rescue.


Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 Neb. 289, 770 N.W.2d 619 (Neb. 2009)