 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ziegelmann v. National Farmers Union Property and Casualty Companies9/21/2004
a tort victim. See, e.g., Bigelow, 313 N.W.2d at 12-13; Boatwright v. Budak, 625 N.W.2d 483, 490 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001). Moreover, because the automobile accident occurred in Minnesota, this state has the stronger governmental interest. See Nodak, 604 N.W.2d at 96 (holding that when all other relevant choice-of-law factors favor neither state's law, state where accident occurred has strongest governmental interest and that state's law should be applied).
The fifth factor, better rule of law, requires that Minnesota courts "prefer rules of law which make good socio-economic sense for the time when the court speaks, whether they be its own or another state's rules." Bigelow, 313 N.W.2d at 13 (quotation omitted). The supreme court has in some cases not placed significant emphasis on this factor. See Nodak, 604 N.W.2d at 96. Nevertheless, I note that Minnesota law makes good socio-economic sense in this case. By not enforcing exhaustion clauses, Minnesota law ensures that tort victims are compensated and limits the amount of useless litigation occurring in this state. Not only does Minnesota law make good socio-economic sense for tort victims and for the cost imposed on the judicial system, but the procedure outlined in Schmidt protects the economic interests of the insurer. See Schmidt, 338 N.W.2d at 260-63.
For these reasons, I would affirm the district court's denial of National Farmers' motion for summary judgment. Minnesota's law should be applied, under which the exhaustion clause is not enforceable.
|