 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nuessmeier Electric8/14/2001
nt that attempted to defeat health insurer's known subrogation claim by reciting that settlement did not include payment for medical expenses would not be enforced).
To avoid an unfair manipulation of contribution liability, and relying on the principles expressed in Milbank and Jones, we conclude that the damages issue should have been submitted to the jury. Contribution is appropriate only when the settling tortfeasor has paid more than its fair share of the loss. City of Willmar, 512 N.W.2d at 874. It is impossible to determine whether the settling tortfeasor has paid more than its "fair share" without a damages determination by the jury. The settling and non-settling tortfeasor have differing obligations for the injured parties' damages. See Jones, 309 N.W.2d at 731 (contribution is available only for damages that are common to both tortfeasors); see also Milbank, 302 Minn. at 285, 225 N.W.2d at 9 (holding that settlement amount between injured party and settling tortfeasor does not determine the damages in a contribution action). Thus, the jury must determine the total obligation of the manufacturer to the injured parties before the district court can determine if the manufacturer paid more than its fair share in settling its total obligation for $175,000.
Because we hold that the district court erred in failing to submit the damages issue to the jury, the tenant is entitled to a new trial on damages. A jury determination should be made both on common damages (which includes any fire damage not related to structural loss) and on non-common damages (which includes any fire damage for structural loss).
Once the jury returns its verdict on damages, the district court must determine whether the manufacturer has paid more than its fair share of the loss. This is accomplished by determining the manufacturer's total obligation for both common and non-common damages. In making that determination, the district court should apply the manufacturer's percentage of fault (72%) to both the common and non-common damages. The percentage reduction applies to the common damages as a result of the jury's apportionment of fault; the percentage reduction applies to the non-common damages (building structure) because if the subrogated fire insurer had pursued the action to trial, under the logical extension of Bruggeman, the subrogated insurer would have borne the fault of its tenant insured (28%). See Medica, Inc. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 566 N.W.2d 74, 76-77 (Minn. 1997) (in subrogation, insurer stands in shoes of its insured and acquires rights insured has against third party).
If the $175,000 settlement exceeds 72% of the total common and non-common damages, then the manufacturer paid more than its "fair share." If the manufacturer paid more than its fair share, it is entitled to contribution from the tenant for the difference between the $175,000 and 72% of the total damages.
DECISION
Because the manufacturer and the tenant have common liability for the damage to the building and its contents, the district court did not err in finding that the first prong of the contribution test had been met. But because it is impossible to determine on this record whether the manufacturer paid more than its fair share of the common damages, the district court erred in determining that the second prong had been met. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the new-trial motion and remand for a new trial on damages.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
|