Hurt by a Government Vehicle That's "Immune" From Suit? Minnesota Now Recognizes an Uninsured-Motorist Claim

The Facts

What happened

James Honcik was injured in February 2022 when a Norman County snowplow drove through a controlled intersection without stopping and collided with his car. The snowplow was owned by the county and driven by a county employee working within the scope of his job.

Honcik first sued Norman County for the driver's negligence. The county was self-insured through the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust (MCIT), and its snowplow was listed on MCIT's schedule of covered vehicles. But the county successfully asserted common-law official immunity — a doctrine that shields individual government employees (and, by extension, the government) from liability for discretionary decisions made in the course of their duties. The district court dismissed Honcik's case against the county, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal in an earlier appeal.

Honcik then turned to his own American Family auto policy and sought uninsured-motorist benefits. American Family denied the claim, arguing that the snowplow was never “uninsured” — it was on MCIT's coverage schedule, and the county had asserted a liability defense, not a coverage denial. The district court agreed with the insurer and granted it summary judgment. Honcik appealed. The Minnesota Association for Justice participated as a friend of the court supporting Honcik's position.

The Decision

What the court held

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Bratvold for a unanimous panel, reversed and remanded, returning the case to the Clay County District Court. It held:

An uninsured motor vehicle under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act includes a motor vehicle for which no liability coverage is available because a tortfeasor is shielded by common-law official immunity.

See Honcik v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., No. A25-1985 (Minn. Ct. App. July 13, 2026). This is a precedential (published) opinion, so it is binding authority in Minnesota.

The No-Fault Act defines an “uninsured motor vehicle” as one for which a “plan of reparation security” (essentially, liability coverage) “is not in effect.” Minn. Stat. § 65B.43, subd. 16. The court's key move was to separate two questions that American Family had tried to blend together: whether coverage technically exists on paper, and whether coverage is actually available — “in effect” — for the injured person's claim.

Drawing on two earlier Minnesota cases, the court explained that a policy can stop being “in effect” even though it once existed:

• In Oganov, the Minnesota Supreme Court treated a tortfeasor's policy as no longer “in effect” after the liability insurer became insolvent.
• In Wilson, this court treated a vehicle as uninsured where an intentional act precluded any available liability benefits.

The lesson the court drew from those cases: “as long as there is some insurance available to cover the vehicle at the time of the accident, the vehicle is not uninsured” — but “if no insurance is available to cover the vehicle,” it has no plan of reparation security in effect. Because official immunity meant “no insurance is available to cover” the county's snowplow for Honcik's claim, the snowplow was an uninsured motor vehicle, even though it appeared on MCIT's schedule.

The court rejected American Family's argument that this reading is “absurd” or an improper expansion of UM coverage. It reasoned that the No-Fault Act's purpose is to relieve the economic distress of injured people, and that there was “no particular reason why American Family should” get the benefit of the county's immunity. As the court put it, the insurer “should not be shielded” by immunity that protects the county.

The decision is narrower than it may first appear, and this is where accuracy matters:

• Honcik did not “win” UM benefits. The court reversed summary judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings. To actually recover, an insured must still establish fault and damages — the No-Fault Act requires that a claimant be “legally entitled to recover damages” from the at-fault owner or operator. Here, American Family conceded it was not disputing that point, which removed that hurdle in this particular case.
• The ruling is limited to common-law official immunity. In a footnote, the court expressly distinguished — and reserved judgment on — whether a vehicle is uninsured when liability coverage is unavailable because of statutory immunity. That question was not before the court and remains open.

Practical Takeaways

What this means for Minnesota injury claims

For anyone injured by a government vehicle — a snowplow, a city truck, a county vehicle — a defense of official immunity has often ended the tort claim against the government. This decision recognizes a path that many drivers may not know they have: their own uninsured-motorist coverage.

Practical points that arise directly from this opinion:

• A government's immunity defense does not necessarily eliminate your recovery. If the at-fault driver is shielded by common-law official immunity, your own UM coverage may apply.
• Your UM coverage is worth checking. UM benefits come from the policy on your own (or a household) vehicle. Reviewing that coverage early can help evaluate options when the at-fault party is a government entity.
• Preserve the immunity record. The correspondence and rulings showing that immunity was asserted and that no liability coverage was available for the claim mattered to the analysis and should be preserved.
• The type of immunity matters. This decision addresses common-law official immunity. Whether the same result applies to statutory immunity is not yet settled.

Related reading from Andrade Law:

• the steps that follow a collision caused by a negligent driver
• what can be done when an insurer denies benefits you paid for
• our case note on Higgins v. Brown, where a jury's uninsured-motorist verdict survived the insurer's push for a new trial

Case Information

Case information