Personal Injury

The appellant was injured by a vehicle owned by the respondent. The appellant required a recurring surgery to alleviate chronic neck pain. The issue at hand was should future medical expenses be covered for the procedure in question. The respondents claimed that the procedure was experimental and unproven by scientific study. This was disproved by the appellants and the respondents were ordered to pay for future surgeries for the appellant. Lisa M. Sipe v. Fleigles Transportation and Services, Inc (Hennepin)

PDF

Statute of Limitations

Homeowner contracted a cleaning company to repair fire damage; the cleaners were faulty in the repair work and failed to clean a mold infestation. The homeowner discovered the mold in 1999 but filed suit in 2002. The two year statue of limitations had run its course. Knowledge of the injury not the actual injury causes the statute of limitations to begin. The court states that the appellant failed to act with due expedience in filing claim against the cleaning company. Kathleen Smith, et al. vs. Lindstrom Cleaning and Construction, Inc (Hennepin)

PDF

Statue of Limitations

The appellant was struck by a snowplow owned by the respondents. The respondent’s insurer was declared insolvent and liquidated before a settlement could be reached. The appellant then filed for Uninsured Motorist claim against his own policy, who refused to pay. The primary issue at hand was the statute of limitations, does the statue begin when the insurance company was liquidated or does the statute apply to the original claim. The court ruled that the original claim initiated the statute, so the appellant’s claim of UM coverage was time barred. Sergey Oganov vs. American Family Insurance Group

PDF

Personal Injury

The appellant was shot and rendered a paraplegic by a security guard at an apartment complex. The appellant claimed that the apartment owners were also at fault along with the security guard. The court ruled that the apartment owners did not hold direct control over the duties and daily activities of the security guards, so the apartment owners are not liable for the appellant’s injuries. Hussein Musse, a minor, et al. vs. Timothy Engle, et al.

PDF

Statute of Limitations

The appellant filed suit against a subcontractor for shoddy work that resulted in the appellant getting sued by a homeowner. The respondent claims that MN statute 541.051 bars the appellant from filing suit after a 10 year statute of limitations has run its course. This case is unique that the legislature amended the statute in question, removing the 10 year limitation, thus opening the appellant to filing suit in appeals. The court ruled to reverse the original decision and rule in favor of the appellant. U.S. Home Corporation, b/b/a Lundgren Brothers vs. Zimmerman Stucco and Plaster, Inc. (Hennepin)

PDF

Criminal Appeal

The Appellant was convicted of murder in 1999, he is appealing the summary denial of his petition for postconviction relief, this is affirmed by the court. Martin claims that his equal rights were infringed when the State struck the only African American juror, second the district court was abusive in its discretion by excluding the testimony of a defense witness. Finally the appellant claims that abused its discretion by denying the appellant a Schwartz hearing to discuss and evaluate jury misconduct. In 2007, appellant Martin filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging that he received incompetent and ineffective assistance at trial, and the court violated his right to be present when the jury requested to meet with the victim’s family. The district court summarily denied him this motion. The court decides that Martin failed to raise his objections at the time of his direct appeal, no explanation is given to why he failed to do so. Martin also failed to show facts that would entitle him to relief. The court affirms the earlier district court’s ruling. Martin vs. State of Minnesota (Carlton County, MN supreme court)

PDF

Insurance

Insurance
The family-owned-vehicle exclusion in the family vehicle policy is unenforceable when an individual, who owns and is operating a vehicle that is insured by his employer, is injured in a motor-vehicle accident with an uninsured driver, Minn. Stat. sec. 65B.49, subd. 3a(7) (2006), does not bar the individual from recovering excess uninsured-motorist benefits from an insurer that provides coverage on a different family vehicle.
Stewart v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co. (Minn.Ct.App)