Minn. Stat. § 176.361, subd. 4 requires intervenors to appear at conferences and hearings if the intervenor’s claim is at issue. If the intervenor fails to appear then the compensation judge must deny its claim, unless none of the parties object to the intervenor’s motion to intervene or they stipulate to the validity of the intervenor’s claim. Sumner v. Lupient Infiniti, A14-0726 (Minn. July 8, 2015). … [Read more...]

INTENTIONAL-INJURY EXCEPTION TO THE MINNESOTA WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT EXCLUSIVE-REMEDY PROVISION. The court emphasized that the intentional-injury exception to the exclusive-remedy rule of the workers’ compensation act is a narrow exception that requires the employer’s conscious and deliberate intent to inflict injury upon the employee. An employer’s intent to injure may not be inferred from an employer’s negligent act or from an employer’s decision to engage in an act that the employer knows, … [Read more...]

Under Minnesota’s No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn. Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 5 (2014), recovery of replacement services for the care and maintenance of a household is not contingent on actual replacement of those household services, as long as the injured person provides the care and maintenance of the home as their full-time responsibility. Schroeder v. Western Nat’l Mutual Insurance Co., A13-2289 (Minn. Ct. App. June 17, 2015). … [Read more...]

In May 2015, Gov. Dayton signed into law two measures that will go into effect for hospital discharges occurring on or after January 1, 2016: 1) The state introduced a diagnosis related group (“DRG”) pricing model for inpatient services, where the workers’ compensation payment for inpatient service will be calculated based on the Medicare MS-DRG system; and 2) Insurers must within 30 days either deny the entire bill or pay 200% of the amount under Medicare when a DRG applies and hospitals submit … [Read more...]

An elasticity clause in an insurance policy does not implement the 2009 Truth in Auto Law unless the policy was issued or renewed on or after November 1, 2009, the effective date of the Act, as it is not “in conflict with” the terms of policies issued or renewed before the effective date. Wolf v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2014AP1522-FT (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2015). … [Read more...]

An obvious gas line leak in the street presented a known and compelling danger which imposed a ministerial duty on the City to act. Therefore, the City had no immunity. Oden v. City of Milwaukee, No. 2014AP130 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2015). … [Read more...]

In Advanced Waste Servs., Inc. v. United Milwaukee Scrap, LLC, No. 2014AP1169 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2015), the absolute pollution exclusion clause, found in many Wisconsin insurance policies, applies to bar coverage for any loss involving the dispersal of pollutants, regardless of whether the insured caused the dispersal. This decision is consistent with two other fairly recent Wisconsin cases: Hirschhorn v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 2012 WI 20, 338 Wis. 2d 761, 809 N.W.2d 529 and United … [Read more...]