Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants’ homeowners insurance policy with State Farm Fire and Casualty Company provided that State Farm will be only the “actual cash value” at the time of the loss of damaged property. Appellants brought a putative class action lawsuit against State Farm, claiming that State Farm breached the terms of Appellants’ policy when it calculated the actual cash value of damaged property. Specifically, Appellants alleged that State Farm’s practice of depreciating embedded labor costs breached State Farm’s duty to indemnify the insured for the actual cash value of the damaged property. The district court certified a question regarding the issue to the Supreme Court. The Court answered that, absent specific language in the insurance policy that identifies the method of calculating actual cash value, the trier of fact may consider, among many other factors, embedded-labor-cost depreciation when such evidence logically tends to establish the actual cash value of a covered loss. View "Wilcox v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Respondents, Angela Lennartson and Katie Foss, were involved in separate car accidents and recovered damages in their respective negligence actions. Subsequently, each respondent was awarded no-fault benefits from their insurer, State Farm, in arbitration proceedings under the Minnesota No-Fault Insurance Act (No-Fault Act). State-Farm moved to vacated the arbitration awards, arguing, inter alia, that collateral estoppel barred the no-fault arbitrations. The district court granted State Farm’s motion to vacate in Lennartson’s case and denied it in Foss’s case. The cases were consolidated on appeal. The court of appeals affirmed the decision in favor of Foss and reversed the decision against Lennartson, concluding that neither the No-Fault Act nor collateral estoppel barred the arbitrators’ awards of no-fault benefits to Respondents.The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the No-Fault Act does not bar an insured from recovering no-fault benefits for medical expenses previously recovered in a negligence action; and (2) collateral estoppel does not bar an insured from seeking medical-expense or income-loss benefits in no-fault arbitration recovering damages for the same expenses or losses in a negligence action. View "State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lennartson" on Justia Law

An insurance company (Insurer) issued a policy of insurance on a building. A bank (Bank) was named in the policy as mortgagee. The policy contained a standard mortgage clause and a vacancy clause. The building was later vandalized, and Bank made a claim on the property. Insurer denied the claim under the vacancy clause. Bank sued for breach of the insurance contract. The district court summary judgment in favor of Insurer, concluding that Insurer was not liable to Bank because there was never any coverage offered for a vacant building. The court of appeals reversed, concluded that, under the standard mortgage clause, Bank was entitled to recover. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, when a property insurance policy contains both a vacancy clause and a standard mortgage clause, a mortgagee has coverage for vandalism damage to a vacant building only if the building was vacant because of the acts of the owner or if the owner failed to comply with the terms of the policy and the mortgagee was unaware of the acts or failure. Remanded. View "Commerce Bank v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was one of nineteen individuals injured when a school bus was struck by an at-fault vehicle. Appellant sought excess underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage benefits from his family’s automobile policy with American Family Mutual Insurance Company because his damages exceeded the recovery available to him under the coverage of the school bus. American Family denied Appellant’s claim for excess UIM benefits, claiming that, pursuant to the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Appellant’s excess UIM coverage ($100,000) did not “exceed” the UIM coverage provided by the school bus’s insurance ($1,000,000). Appellant then brought this action, seeking the difference between the recovery he received and his UIM policy limits from American Family. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of American Family, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the phrase “coverage available,” as used in Minn. Stat. 65B.49(3)(a)(5), in reference to the “excess insurance protection” for an injured insured, is ambiguous; and (2) the phrase “coverage available” means the benefits actually paid to the insured under the coverage provided by the occupied vehicle’s policy. View "Sleiter v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Prior to his death and after consulting a lawyer about divorcing Wife, Husband changed the beneficiary on his term life insurance policy from Wife to Respondents, his parents and sister. Less than four months before Husband’s death, Wife petitioned for dissolution of marriage to Husband. Following Husband’s death, the district court dismissed the dissolution proceeding. Wife subsequently filed suit against Respondents, alleging that Husband’s transfer violated Minn. Stat. 518.58(1)(a), which prohibits the transfer of “marital assets” by a party who contemplates commencing a marriage dissolution. The district court granted summary judgment to Respondents. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that section 518.58(1)(a) did not apply to Wife’s claim because her dissolution proceeding abated upon Husband’s death and the statute applies only in current dissolution proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the language of section 518.58(1)(a) limits the statute’s application to pending dissolution proceedings, the statute did not provide Wife, who was no longer a party to a marital dissolution proceeding, a remedy in this case. View "Nelson v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Respondent suffered a significant injury in a motor vehicle accident and was totally disabled for approximately five months. During her period of disability, Respondent was unable to perform most household duties. Respondent later filed a claim for replacement service loss benefits with her no-fault insurance provider, Western National Mutual Insurance Co. (Appellant), alleging that she was entitled to the reasonable value of the home care and maintenance services she was unable to perform. Appellant refused to pay Respondent’s claim, asserting that it would not reimburse Respondent for household services that were not replaced in some way. An arbitrator awarded Respondent’s entire claim. The district court denied Appellant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Minn. Stat. 65B.44(5) does not require replacement of household services when the injured person is primarily responsible for household duties. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an injured person who has primary responsibility for care and maintenance of the household need not replace household services as a condition to recovering the reasonable value of such services under section 65B.44(5). View "Schroeder v. Western Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A reporter from the Star Tribune submitted a request for data to the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association (MJUA), an entity created by the Legislature to provide insurance for people or entitled who are required to have insurance and are unable to obtain insurance through ordinary methods. MJUA sought a written advisory opinion from the Commissioner of the Department of Administration as to whether MJUA was a state agency subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). The Commissioner declined to issue an advisory opinion. MJUA then commenced a lawsuit for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that it was not a governmental agency subject to the MGDPA. The district court granted the Star Tribune’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and ordered MJUA to comply with the MGDPA, concluding that MJUA is a state agency. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that MJUA is not a governmental entity subject to the MGDPA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that MJUA is not a state agency subject to the MGDPA. View "Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n v. Star Tribune Media Co." on Justia Law

Respondents brought an action against Appellant, their insurer, after Appellant denied their claim for property damage. The district court dismissed the action as untimely, concluding that although Respondents made service before the limitations period in the insurance policy expired, the action was untimely because they filed the affidavit of compliance after the policy’s limitations period had expired. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that that the affidavit of compliance may be filed after a limitations period has expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Respondents filed the affidavit of compliance before the return day of the process, the service of process was effective, and Respondents’ suit was not barred by the limitations period in their insurance policy. View "Meeker v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

During a hail storm, all twenty of the townhome buildings managed by Cedar Bluff Townhome Condominium Association (Cedar Bluff) were damaged, with at least one siding panel on each building sustaining damage. Cedar Bluff submitted a claim to American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American Family) under its businessowners’ policy, which provided for the replacement of “damaged property with other property…[o]f comparable material and quality.” A dispute arose as to whether the policy required the replacement of all siding, including undamaged siding, in order to provide a color match. Because the parties were unable to agree on the amount of the loss, Cedar Bluff demanded an appraisal. The appraisal panel concluded that siding of comparable material and quality required a reasonable color match between the damaged and undamaged siding. American Family refused to pay the appraisal award. The court of appeals agreed with the appraisal panel, concluding that “a reasonable person could understand that ‘comparable material’ means material that is the same color as the damaged property.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the terms of its policy with American Family, Cedar Bluff was entitled to have all of the siding panels on each of its twenty buildings replaced. View "Cedar Bluff Townhome Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Minn. Stat. 176.081(1)(a) requires employers and insurers to pay attorney fees calculated by a statutory formula not subject to judicial review. In this case, Respondent injured his back while working for Employer. Employer and its insurer (together, Relators) settled with Respondent. Respondent’s attorney then sought an award of contingent attorney fees in an amount that was calculated by applying the statutory formula in section 176.081 but which disregarded the upper limit set by the formula. Relators objected, arguing that, in the absence of judicial review to ensure a fee award is not excessive, application of the statutory formula violates separation of powers principles. The compensation judge applied the statutory formula and concluded that $13,000 would adequately compensate Respondent’s attorney but refused to consider whether the statutory fee was reasonable. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed the compensation judge’s fee award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court will recognize the Legislature’s statutory formula as presumptively reasonable, and, absent exceptional circumstances, further judicial review of an award based on the statutory formula is unnecessary; and (2) Relators failed to present any exceptional circumstances to challenge this presumption. View "David v. Bartel Enters." on Justia Law