Bassford Remele is a full service litigation firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Founded in 1882, the firm represents local, national and international clients in all areas of civil litigation and dispute resolution.
During the week of March 26, 2010, the Minnesota appellate courts released an opinion on the following topic that may be of interest to our clients:
COLLATERAL SOURCE STATUTE – SETTLEMENTS WITH TORTFEASOR
Plaintiff incurred medical bills due to injuries suffered in an automobile accident. Plaintiff commenced suit against the tortfeasor, which ultimately settled, and then brought an action against the tortfeasor’s insurer seeking no-fault benefits. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but the trial court offset the damage award by the amount plaintiff received in settlement with the tortfeasor. The court of appeals affirmed.
The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. After finding no guidance from the No-Fault Act, the Court turned to the collateral source statute. Despite the fact that the statute explicitly includes payments made pursuant to “automobile accident insurance,” the Court held that a payment made by a tortfeasor’s automobile insurer is not a collateral source. So as not to be in “derogation of the common law,” the Court reasoned that, “[W]e have understood a collateral source to mean a source unrelated to the tortfeasor . . . [and] In the absence of clear statutory language, we will not expand the definition of a ‘collateral source’ to include a source related to a tortfeasor.” The case was remanded to the trial court for recalculation of the net judgment entered against the insurer.
Do v. American Family Ins. Co., A07-1461 (Minn. 3/25/10).
Editorial Staff |
C. Lundberg, C. Morris, K. Putney, R.A. Williams, J.S. Andresen, M. Covin, S. Gustad, B. Sande, C. Hund, S. Sitek, T. Quick, D. Camarotto, K. Burke, J. Marquet, D. Turner, L. Pugh, M. Bradford, P. Semrow, and S. Pearson |
Writer this Week: |