In the auto-arena, self-insured conservation (IRS) can be an “insurance” in the context of a policy issued to a qualified self-insured owner. Minnesota, like several other jurisdictions, has recognized that qualified autonomy insurance, as it may be called for convenience, requires the automatic insurer to offer the public, which must be protected by mandatory insurance with the same “coverage” and incidents of “coverage” as it should have purchased, but for the automatic insurance certificate. See z.B. Hertz Corp. v. State Farm Courage. In the. Co., 573 N.W.2d 686, 689 (Minn. 1998) (self-insurance certificate acquired after minn.
Stat. N° 65B.48, Subd. 3 of the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, “is the functional equivalent of an insurance policy” and “such a policy, if acquired [by the self-insured owner], would include an omnibus clause extending insurance coverage to voluntary drivers as additional unreported insureds” and would constitute “other insurance” within the meaning of the tenant`s personal insurance; McClain/ Begley, 465 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1991) (same); White v. Howard, 240 N.J. Super. 427, 573 A.2d 513 (N.J. Super. A.D.
1990), 122 N.J. 339, 585 A.2d 354 (N.J. 17 July 1990) (“qualified self-insurance insurance” from the car rental agency received the equivalent of “other collector” insurance within the meaning of the tenant`s personal policy; Boatright v. Spiewak, 214 Wis.2d 507, 570 N.W.2d 897 (1997) (law requires self-insured rental agencies to “pay the same amounts that an insurer would have had to pay under a car liability policy if it had been issued” and therefore that the protection extended to the tenant constituted “other insurance” within the meaning of the tenant`s personal automobile insurance); Southern Home Ins. Co. v. Burdette`s Leasing Service, Inc., 268 p.C 472, 234 S.E.2d 870, 872 (1977) (automatic insurer is required to protect the vehicle of a company-specific insurer with its consent, as it must provide a mandatory automobile liability policy and therefore extended protection to the tenant constitutes “insurance” within the meaning of the type of reading). The Bundesbezirksgericht concluded that Payless itself was insured for US$200,000 and that self-insurance was “insurance” within the meaning of CU`s “other insurance” clause, so Payless could not recover anything. The District Court also found that USF-G`s policy was “closer to risk” than the cu policy, so THAT USF-G could not recover.