Hot Topics*

1. Maria (Dunahoo) Ollikkala v. RSI, Inc., et al. State of Minnesota in Supreme Court (posted February 8. 2010)
2. Jonathon Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. Filed: February 4, 2010. State of Minnesota in Supreme Court (posted February 5. 2010)
3. Stacy G. Juetten v. LCA-Vision, Inc., et al. Filed: February 2, 2010. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted February 5, 2010)
4. Charles J. Rodenwald, et al. v. State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Filed: January 19, 2010. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted January 20, 2010)
5. Lonnie S. Singelman v. St. Francis Medical Center. Filed: January 19, 2010. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted January 20, 2010)
6. Nancy M. Meyer, et al. v. Bibian Nwokedi, et al. Filed: January 14, 2010. State of Minnesota in Supreme Court (posted January 14, 2010)
7. Peter Freeman, et al. v. Janette J. Swift. Filed: December 29, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted January 4, 2010)
8. Curtis R. Graff v. Robert M. Swendra Agency, Inc. Filed: December 29, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted January 4, 2010)
9. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al. Filed: December 24, 2009. State of Minnesota in Supreme Court (posted December 29, 2009)
10. David J. T. Miller v. Linda J. Lankow, et al. Filed: December 22, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted December 29, 2009)
11. David S. Kasid v. Country Mutual Insurance Company. Filed: Decmeberr 22, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted December 29, 2009)
12. Advanced Delivery Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alfredo Jaime. Filed: September 22, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted September 27, 2009)
13. Thomas Booth, et al. v. Ryan Gades, et al. Filed: August 25, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted August 26, 2009)
14. Elizabeth Friend v. Gopher Company, Inc., et al. Filed: August 25, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted August 26, 2009)
15. Pigs R Us, LLC v. Compton Township, et al. Filed: August 11, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted August 12, 2009)
16. Bradley J. Buscher, et al. v. Montag Development, Inc., et al. Filed: August 4, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted August 5, 2009)
17. RAM Mutual Insurance Company v. Daniel Meyer and Linda Meyer, et al. Filed: July 21, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted July 23, 2009)
18. Star Windshield Repair, Inc. v. Western National Insurance Co, et al. Filed: July 16, 2009. State of Minnesota in Supreme Court (posted July 17, 2009)
19. Elizabeth Niemi v. Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin Lakes and Pines. Filed: July 14, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted July 16, 2009)
20. Randy A. Vee, et al. v. Badri Abas Ibrahim, et al. Filed: July 14, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals (posted July 15, 2009)

• Maria (Dunahoo) Ollikkala v. RSI, Inc., et al. State of Minnesota in Supreme Court
  MSBA:
  The decision affirmed (without precedential effect) can be found at http://www.workerscomp.state.mn.us/2009/Ollikkala-08-11-09.html where the headnotes state:
  
  "PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION; STATUTES CONSTRUED - MINN. STAT. § 176.155, SUBD. 1. Where the employer had requested a subsequent independent examination with a different examiner on a different medical issue, where the judge did not deny the employer's right to the later examination but only the change of examiner, and where the judge's denial appeared based only on a conclusion that the previous examiner appeared qualified to perform the subsequent examination, the judge's order denying the employer's motion to compel attendance at the examination with the new examiner was an improper limitation of the employer's right under Minn. Stat. § 176.155, subd. 1.
  
  PENALTIES. Where the judge offered no real analysis of the issue but it was apparent from the record that the employer had neglected to pay interest on benefits awarded under the judge's findings and order and had delayed in the payment of attorney fees, the compensation judge's award of a $250.00 penalty was affirmed, notwithstanding the fact that the employee's entitlement to interest had not been pleaded before the judge." where the headnotes state:
  
  
• Jonathon Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. Filed: February 4, 2010. State of Minnesota in Supreme Court
  The tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) (2006) suspends the running of a limitations period on a state-law claim during the time that the claim is pending in federal court and for 30 days after dismissal.
  
  Affirmed and remanded.
  
  
• Stacy G. Juetten v. LCA-Vision, Inc., et al. Filed: February 2, 2010. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  A medical malpractice plaintiff who misses the deadline for serving a defendant corporation with expert witness affidavits required by Minnesota Statutes section 145.682, subdivisions 2(2) and 4 may not avoid dismissal of her suit by amending her complaint to add a physician defendant whose alleged negligence constitutes the same cause of action as her claim against the original corporate defendant.
  
  
• Charles J. Rodenwald, et al. v. State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Filed: January 19, 2010. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  The mere-slipperiness rule, which frequently precludes a finding of negligence based on the failure to prevent or remove ice from sidewalks or walkways, applies to claims against the state as well as against municipalities.
  
  
• Lonnie S. Singelman v. St. Francis Medical Center. Filed: January 19, 2010. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01(c), which provides that an action is commenced when the summons is "delivered to the sheriff in the county where the defendant resides," requires personal delivery to the sheriff. Transmittal by mail to the sheriff does not commence an action.
  
  
• Nancy M. Meyer, et al. v. Bibian Nwokedi, et al. Filed: January 14, 2010. State of Minnesota in Supreme Court
  1. The Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (2006), preempts state laws that impose vicarious liability on rental-vehicle owners, but the savings clause of the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106(b)(2), excludes from preemption state laws that impose liability on rental-vehicle owners for failure to meet "financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements" under state law.
  
  2. Minnesota Statutes § 65B.49, subd. 5a(i)(2) (2006), does not impose liability on rental-vehicle owners for failure to meet "financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements" within the meaning of the section 30106(b)(2) savings clause. Therefore, appellant's vicarious liability claim, which is predicated on Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 5a(i)(2), is preempted by the Graves Amendment.
  
  3. Minnesota Statutes § 169.09, subd. 5a (2008), does not impose liability on rental-vehicle owners for failure to meet "financial responsibility or liability insurance requirements" within the meaning of the section 30106(b)(2) savings clause of the Graves Amendment. Therefore, appellant's vicarious liability claim, which is predicated on Minn. Stat. § 169.09, subd. 5a, is preempted by the Graves Amendment.
  
  Affirmed and remanded to the district court to implement the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.
  
  
• Curtis R. Graff v. Robert M. Swendra Agency, Inc. Filed: December 29, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  1. An insured who settles with the insurer for the coverage limit may pursue a negligence action against the insurance agent for failing to procure additional insurance coverage.
  
  2. Under Minn. Stat. § 548.251 (2008), a workers' compensation settlement that is a collateral source is reduced by the amount of attorney fees paid to secure that settlement.
  
  
• Peter Freeman, et al. v. Janette J. Swift. Filed: December 29, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  Allegedly defamatory speech is not immune from liability under Minn. Stat. § 554.03 (2008) if the nature, purpose and intended audience of the speech demonstrate that the speech is not genuinely aimed in whole or in part at procuring favorable government action.
  
  
• West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al. Filed: December 24, 2009. State of Minnesota in Supreme Court
  1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(5) (2008), primary underinsured motorist benefits are available from an insurance policy specifically covering an occupied vehicle. When the owner of an automobile repair business is injured in a motor vehicle accident while occupying a customer's vehicle, and collects underinsured motorist benefits from the policy specifically covering his customer's vehicle, the injured party is not entitled to additional underinsured motorist benefits from the garage business owner's liability policy covering the business on the ground that it is co-primary under the statute.
  
  2. An insurance policy that limits underinsured motorist benefits to a "named insured or family member" does not provide coverage that is broader than Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(5), and therefore a person who is not a named insured or a family member does not have excess underinsured motorist coverage under the policy.
  
  Affirmed.
  
  
• David J. T. Miller v. Linda J. Lankow, et al. Filed: December 22, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  To avoid sanctions for spoliation of evidence, a party must provide advance notice of any action that would lead to destruction of evidence and afford a reasonable amount of time from the date of the notice to inspect and preserve the evidence.
  
  
• David S. Kasid v. Country Mutual Insurance Company. Filed: Decmeberr 22, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  An individual who has not been denied the opportunity to obtain identifying information from another driver involved in an automobile collision fails to show that the collision involved the operation of a hit-and-run vehicle and is not entitled to uninsured-motorist benefits.
  
  
• Advanced Delivery Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alfredo Jaime. Filed: September 22, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  When a workers' compensation issue is present in a district court action, the court has discretion under Minn. Stat. § 176.301, subd. 1 (2008), to try the action itself without a jury, or refer the matter to the workers' compensation court.
  
  
• Thomas Booth, et al. v. Ryan Gades, et al. Filed: August 25, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  The vicarious liability of a municipal employer for the employment-related alleged negligence of a firefighter-employee is not destroyed by a plaintiff's partial release of firefighter and his insurer up to the limits of firefighter's personal liability policy and for any amounts greater than the limits of excess coverage believed to be available to firefighter under city's insurance policy even if firefighter is determined not to be entitled to such excess coverage.
  
  
• Elizabeth Friend v. Gopher Company, Inc., et al. Filed: August 25, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  I. Employment-discrimination claims based on allegations of disparate treatment may be proved using one of two evidentiary frameworks: direct evidence of discriminatory motive or the shifting-burdens analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973).
  
  II. A discrimination claim may be proved under the direct-evidence framework using direct or circumstantial evidence, or a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.
  
  
• Pigs R Us, LLC v. Compton Township, et al. Filed: August 11, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  The Municipal Tort Claims Act does not shield a municipality from damages that are awarded in a mandamus action under Minn. Stat. § 586.09 (2008).
  
  
• Bradley J. Buscher, et al. v. Montag Development, Inc., et al. Filed: August 4, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  1. The two-year statute of limitations of Minn. Stat.§ 541.051, subd. 1(a) (2008) begins to run when the injured party discovers or should have discovered an actionable injury, regardless of whether the injured party can identify the defect causing the injury.
  
  2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.07, the district court may order sanctions, including reasonable costs and attorney fees, against a party who opposes summary judgment by submitting an affidavit in bad faith or for purposes of delay.
  
  3. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03, the district court may order sanctions against a lawyer or law firm, including payment of a penalty into the court, when the lawyer or law firm asserts claims or defenses that are (1) not warranted by existing law; (2) frivolous; (3) unsupported by factual evidence; or (4) made to harass, delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.
  
  
• RAM Mutual Insurance Company v. Daniel Meyer and Linda Meyer, et al. Filed: July 21, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  An intentional-act exclusion in a liability-insurance policy only excludes coverage for those occurrences in which the act is so willful and egregious or the anticipated injury is so obvious that the injury is not accidental.
  
  
• Star Windshield Repair, Inc. v. Western National Insurance Co, et al. Filed: July 16, 2009. State of Minnesota in Supreme Court
  An anti-assignment clause in an auto insurance policy does not prevent insured policyholders from assigning to auto glass vendors the right to arbitrate disputes over auto glass claims.
  
  Reversed and remanded.
  
  
• Elizabeth Niemi v. Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin Lakes and Pines. Filed: July 14, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  The district court erred by disqualifying an attorney and his law firm from representing appellant on the ground that the attorney represented respondent in a different lawsuit more than 25 years earlier. The two lawsuits are not "substantially related matters" for purposes of rule 1.9(a) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct because the confidential factual information respondent presumably shared with the attorney during the pendency of the prior lawsuit now is obsolete.
  
  
• Randy A. Vee, et al. v. Badri Abas Ibrahim, et al. Filed: July 14, 2009. Minnesota Court of Appeals
  A semitrailer is not a "motor vehicle" for the purpose of applying the motor vehicle vicarious liability statute, Minnesota Statutes section 169.09, subdivision 5a.