 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelson v. American Family Insurance Group8/28/2001
Affirmed
Appellant won a jury verdict in South Dakota against a negligent driver for losses stemming from a motor-vehicle accident that occurred in South Dakota. She subsequently brought a lawsuit in Minnesota to recover no-fault benefits from her insurer. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted respondent's motion and dismissed appellant's no-fault wage-loss claim. Appellant contends that she is entitled to wage-loss benefits that her insurer should have paid her before the South Dakota verdict was rendered. Appellant asserts that neither the statutory set-off provision nor the theories of accord and satisfaction, collateral estoppel, or res judicata bar her claims. Because appellant has been compensated for her wage loss, and receipt of no fault wage-loss benefits would result in a duplicate recovery, we affirm. We do not reach the issues of whether any legal theory advanced by respondent bars appellant's claim.
FACTS
Appellant Sharon Nelson had automobile insurance with respondent American Family Insurance Group. On March 2, 1990, appellant was involved in a motor-vehicle accident, and, pursuant to her no-fault coverage, respondent paid her the maximum of $20,000 in wage-loss benefits. On May 16, 1991, appellant was involved in a second automobile accident that occurred in South Dakota. Respondent denied appellant's claim for wage-loss benefits arising out of the second accident on the ground that she had not been medically released to return to work by the time the second accident occurred. Appellant never sought arbitration of her no-fault claims pursuant to Minn. Stat. ยงรก65B.525 (Minn. 2000).
Appellant brought a tort claim in South Dakota against the other driver in the May 16, 1991 accident. The jury awarded appellant $37,000 for past wage loss, $53,000 for loss of future earning capacity, and $16,000 for future medical expenses. The judgment was paid in full.
Following the verdict, appellant sued respondent in Minnesota for breach of contract. The parties settled appellant's claim for medical benefits related to the second accident. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claim for no-fault wage-loss benefits.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent. The court held that, in light of the South Dakota jury's award of $37,000 for past wage loss, "awarding further loss of income damages would frustrate the purpose of the No-Fault act by allowing duplicative recovery." This appeal follows.
ISSUES
1. Did the district court err in its interpretation of the no-fault act?
2. Is respondent entitled to the defenses of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or accord and satisfaction?
ANALYSIS
I.
This is a case of first impression. Because the question requires us to determine the intent and effect of the no-fault act, our review is de novo. American Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277-78 (Minn. 2000). A statute should be interpreted, whenever possible, to give effect to all of its provisions; "no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed superfluous, void, or insignificant." Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn. 1999) (citing Owens v. Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins., 328 N.W.2d 162, 164 (Minn. 1983)). When construing a statute, a court's goal is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Id.
In the case of the no-fault act, the legislature has stated the statute's purpose clearly:
To relieve the severe economic distress of uncompensated victims of automobile accidents within this state b
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.
|
|