 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coleman v. Eddy Potash Inc.9/22/1995
ry to prospective economic interests and not a claim for personal injury. We do not see how the Act would be relevant to such a claim and conclude that as the claim has evolved elsewhere, it would not be barred by the exclusivity provision.
VI.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Coleman's claim for negligent spoliation of evidence, we reverse the dismissal of her claim for intentional spoliation of evidence, and we remand this cause to the district court for further proceedings. Coleman shall recover her appellate costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PAMELA B. MINZNER, Justice
WE CONCUR:
RICHARD E. RANSOM, Justice
GENE E. FRANCHINI, Justice
|