 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Loven v. City of Minneapolis3/7/2002
ple, each entitled to $40,000 in no-fault benefits, the tort liability cap would be reached before full recovery under the No-Fault Act by the victims. In that scenario, the legislative policy of compensation up to the no-fault limits is frustrated, although the liability cap is effective. See also Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Sittner, 902 P.2d 938, 941 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995) (holding county could not deduct personal injury protection payments from tort liability cap because to do so would result in inadequate compensation for tort claim).
We recognize that the legislature had a legitimate purpose in limiting the liability of municipalities. Snyder v. City of Minneapolis, 441 N.W.2d 781, 789 (Minn. 1989) (holding liability cap on municipal tort liability to be "'rationally related to the legitimate government objective of insuring fiscal stability to meet and carry out the manifold responsibilities of government,'" quoting Lienhard, 431 N.W.2d at 868). However, in order to facilitate the underlying purposes and philosophy of our tort law, we read the tort liability cap restrictively. See Wilson v. City of Eagan, 297 N.W.2d 146, 149-50 (Minn. 1980) (holding sovereign immunity should be treated restrictively). In Wilson, this principle led us to conclude that punitive damages against municipal officers were allowable in tort actions against municipalities and their officers despite the liability cap for compensatory damages and the ban on punitive damages against the city. Id.
We noted that the legislature did not amend the statute to preclude such an award based on our decision in Douglas v. City of Minneapolis, 304 Minn. 259, 230 N.W.2d 577 (1975). Wilson, 297 N.W.2d at 149. Similarly, in this case the legislature did not include no-fault payments within the types of liability under the tort liability cap in Chapter 466, nor did it limit the applicability of the No-Fault Act to actions against municipalities falling within the cap.
Contrasted with our restrictive reading of the tort liability cap is the "over-arching policy of full compensation" reflected in the No-Fault Act. Scheibel v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 615 N.W.2d 34, 38 (Minn. 2000). We believe that we can best give effect to both statutes consistent with these principles by holding that the liability cap applies to tort damages separate from the basic economic loss benefits to which all persons injured as a result of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle are entitled.
Under this reading, the municipality will not be exposed to unlimited liability. First, respondents may receive only limited basic economic loss benefits, specifically, $40,000 per individual in a single occurrence. Minn. Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 1. Moreover, tort damages not included in basic economic loss benefits but included within the scope of Minn. Stat. §§á466.01-.15 are limited by the municipal tort liability cap. Finally, respondents are denied duplicate recovery, as provided in Minn. Stat. § 65B.51, subd. 1. See also Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 461 N.W.2d 374, 379 (Minn. 1990) (rejecting double recovery for the same harm as a general matter).
We hold that the municipal tort liability cap, Minn. Stat. § 466.04, does not limit a self-insured municipality's obligation to pay basic economic loss benefits as a reparation obligor under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|