## Facts

- Andrew Rusthoven, Jr., a truck driver for R.E.T.E.N.O. Carriers, Inc., was injured on March 8, 1981 while driving a rented tractor–trailer in the course of employment.
- An unidentified “phantom” vehicle crossed the centerline, forcing Rusthoven onto the shoulder; the truck slid into a ditch and overturned.
- R.E.T.E.N.O. leased its fleet vehicles and insured them under a truckers’ policy issued by Commercial Standard Insurance Company, with premiums based on gross receipts and no schedule of specific vehicles.
- The policy included uninsured-motorist (UM) coverage modified by multiple endorsements:
  - An original UM endorsement stating a single maximum payable per accident “regardless of the number of covered autos.”
  - An endorsement setting split UM limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident, also stating the limit applied “regardless of the number of covered autos.”
  - A later endorsement that repeated the “regardless of the number of covered autos” language but added: if more than one covered auto exists, the limit for any one accident is “the sum of the limits applicable to each covered auto.”
- Rusthoven and Western National Mutual Insurance Company (another UM insurer) sought a declaration that Commercial’s UM limits stacked across covered autos and that Commercial’s coverage applied before Western’s.

## Issues

1. Whether Commercial’s UM endorsements limited recovery to $25,000 per person (and $50,000 per accident) or instead provided stackable UM limits equal to the sum of limits applicable to each covered auto.
2. Whether Commercial’s UM coverage was primary or whether Western’s policy applied first.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the lower courts.
- The court held that the later UM endorsement’s “sum of the limits applicable to each covered auto” language provided stacked UM coverage, not a single $25,000 per-person limit.
- The court held Commercial’s truckers’ policy was primary for UM benefits arising from the accident, and Western’s coverage was excess.

## Legal Principles

- Insurance policies must be read as a whole, with endorsements treated as part of the contract; later endorsements generally control over conflicting earlier provisions.
- If policy language reasonably supports more than one interpretation, ambiguity is construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage consistent with the insured’s reasonable expectations.
- Express UM language stating that the limit for one accident is “the sum of the limits applicable to each covered auto” authorizes contractual stacking across covered vehicles, even in fleet-style policies.
- For an employee injured while operating an employer’s insured vehicle in the course of employment, the employer’s auto policy is ordinarily primary for UM benefits absent clear contrary policy language.

## Conclusion

The court construed the insurer-drafted UM endorsements to allow stacking because the later endorsement added a “sum of limits” clause that could reasonably be read to multiply UM limits across covered autos, and it required the employer’s insurer to provide primary UM coverage ahead of other potentially applicable UM insurance.


Rusthoven v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., 387 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 1986)