Finally, Security National contends that even if a self-insured state enjoying statutory immunity can be an “
inadequately insured motorist”, it is not accurate to say that Minnesota is underinsured. Security National urges that Minnesota
offers single occurrence coverage up to US$1,500,000 that
exceeds the CAD$1 million coverage ceiling payable under
OPCF 44R. Security National thus maintains that its maximum
liability is zero under the terms of OPCF 44R.
 I would reject all of these objections and hold that the
motion judge was correct in concluding that Minnesota is an
inadequately insured motorist.
(a) Does Minnesota’s self-insurance defeat the claim?
 Security National’s argument that there is no coverage
because Minnesota is self-insured rests on the contention that
self-insurance is “conceptually very different from being underinsured”. This is because self-insurance lacks “the risk transfer
by which traditional insurance is defined”.
 This argument is intuitively unappealing. OPCF 44R
clearly contemplates coverage if a claimant is injured by someone who has no motor vehicle insurance at all: Gostick (
Litigation guardian of) v. Squance (Litigation administrator of), 
O.J. No. 3776, 2007 ONCA 674, 229 O.A.C. 373, at paras. 2,
14-16. One would think that a person carrying no insurance is
“self-insured” since they have not transferred their risk.
 Approaching the matter more technically, the problem
with Security National’s argument is that it is misdirected. The
material question is not whether “self-insurance” comfortably
fits the usual concept of being insured. It is whether, as a matter
of contractual interpretation, Minnesota is caught by the
definition of “inadequately insured motorist” in s. 1.1.5(a)
of OPCF 44R:
“inadequately insured motorist” means
(a) the identified owner or identified driver of an automobile for
which the total motor vehicle liability insurance or bonds, cash
deposits or other financial guarantees as required by law in lieu of
insurance, obtained by the owner or driver is less than the limit of
family protection coverage[.]
 OPCF 44R is an endorsement to a standard form insurance contract. The principles of interpretation that apply to such
contracts are settled, and were recently reiterated in Sabean v.
Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co.,  S.C.J. No. 7,
2017 SCC 7, 406 D.L.R. (4th) 623.