 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelson v. American Family Insurance Group8/28/2001
y requiring automobile insurers to offer and automobile owners to maintain automobile insurance policies or other pledges of indemnity which will provide prompt payment of specified basic economic loss benefits to victims of automobile accidents without regard to whose fault caused the accident;
To correct imbalances and abuses in the operation of the automobile accident tort liability system, to provide offsets to avoid duplicate recovery, * * * and to govern the effect of advance payments prior to final settlement of liability. Minn. Stat. § 65B.42 (2000) (emphasis added).
When an insured seeks recovery against a tortfeasor, the no-fault act does not "impair or limit tort liability or limit the damages recoverable from any person for negligent acts or omissions." Minn. Stat. § 65B.51, subd. 5 (2000). Rather, to avoid a double recovery in negligence actions, the statute directs a Minnesota court to offset any tort award by the amount of basic economic benefits already paid or payable by the no-fault provider. Minn. Stat. § 65B.51, subd. 1 (2000).
Here, we agree with the district court that appellant is, in essence, seeking a double recovery. We recognize that this case varies from the more standard no-fault claim, where the no-fault insurer would have paid the insured for causally related losses and any payment would have been offset against a later jury award, assuming that the appropriate request was made. Cf. id. The reverse sequence occurred here—appellant obtained a tort award and then challenged a denial of no-fault benefits, asserting that the insurer's statutory obligation is unaffected by the tort recovery.
We have routinely held that the no-fault act precludes double recoveries regardless of the label. See, e.g., Simpson v. American Family Ins. Co., 603 N.W.2d 860, 864 (Minn. App. 2000) (under no-fault act, insured cannot recover future economic damages from insurer until exhausting jury award); LeBeau v. John Deere Ins. Co., 574 N.W.2d 83, 85 (Minn. App. 1998) (insured must first exhaust the amount of the settlement allocated for expected medical expenses before being entitled to recover any medical expenses from insurer), review denied (Minn. Mar. 26, 1998).
Appellant urges us to adopt a different result because her jury verdict was obtained in South Dakota. Under her reading of the no-fault act, there cannot be an offset for the jury award because there is no Minnesota judgment. We disagree with appellant that the fact that this is a foreign judgment alters the result under the Minnesota statutory scheme. Our courts should apply the law of Minnesota, not South Dakota, when the claim is between a Minnesota resident and her Minnesota insurer. Appellant alludes that there is a difference between Minnesota and South Dakota insurance laws, but her only citation to South Dakota law is a statute that pertains to medical malpractice, not insurance law. See S.D. Codified Laws §á21-3-12 (2000) (discussing admissibility of evidence of special damages insurance from certain collateral sources in personal injury actions for medical malpractice). Moreover, South Dakota, like Minnesota, avoids granting double recoveries. "South Dakota law is explicit and unambiguous in prohibiting a double recovery" in cases involving uninsured-motorist disputes between insurance companies and their insureds. Nickerson v. American States Ins., 616 N.W.2d 468, 472 (S.D. 2000) (citation omitted).
Further, the Minnesota no-fault act provides that insureds are entitled to no-fault insurance benefits if they are involved in accidents outside Minnesota. Minn. Stat. §á65B.46, subd. 2 (2000). The offset provision simply states that " ith respect to a cause of action i
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.
|
|