NEWS CONTACT Phone 952-546-8400

-

CVMM Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America

Congratulations to these Cousineau, Van Bergen, McNee & Malone attorneys who have been recognized in the 24th edition of The Best Lawyers in America (2018 Edition):

  •  Michael C. Lindberg – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants and  Product Liability Litigation – Defendants;
  •  Peter G.  Van Bergen – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants and  Product Liability Litigation – Defendants;
  •  Michael W. McNee –  Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants;
  •  Susan D.  Thurmer –   Personal Injury  Litigation – Defendants.
-

Kimberly Fleming Named Shareholder

Cousineau, Van Bergen, McNee & Malone, P.A. is pleased to announce that Kimberly Fleming has become a shareholder with the firm.  Fleming practices in Minnesota and Wisconsin in the areas of personal injury defense including motor vehicle liability, premises liability, and general liability. Fleming also handles employment claims for employers, FCRA defense, and election law claims.  Fleming earned her J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School, graduating cum laude.

To learn more about Kimberly Fleming and her practice, please visit her attorney profile: https://cousineaulaw.com/attorneys/fleming-kimberly/

 

 

-

MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 60A.41 PROHIBITS CLAIMS AGAINST A THIRD-PARTY RENTER WHEN THAT INDIVIDUAL FALLS WITHIN THE POLICY DEFINITION OF AN “INSURED”.

Depositors Insurance v. Dollansky – CoA Decision
Minnesota Court of Appeals
12/11/2017

In the recent Minnesota Court of Appeals of decision Depositors Insurance Company v .Dollansky, the Court held that Minnesota Statutes Section 60A.41 prohibiting insurance companies from subrogating against their own insured prohibits insurance companies from subrogating against a third-party renter that is defined as an “insured” by the terms of the policy, even if the renter is not a “named insured” on the policy.

Craig and Julie Dollansky rented a motorhome from Karavan Trailers. Pursuant to the rental agreement, Dollansky was required to provide insurance for Vehicle Liability, Collision, and Comprehensive Insurance covering the Renter (Dollansky), Karavan, and the vehicle.  Dollansky was driving the vehicle when it caught fire, causing damage to the motorhome in the amount of $204,895.05. The cause of the fire is unknown.  After paying the claim, Karavan’s insurer Depositor brought suit against Dollansky in subrogation for the value of the damaged motorhome.  The District Court granted summary judgment for Dollansky, concluding that Dollansky was “insured” under Depositor’s policy and that Minnesota Statute section 60A.41 therefore prohibits Depositors from proceeding in a subrogation action against Dollansky, even though the rental contract required Dollansky to provide insurance coverage and to be liable for damage during the rental period.

On appeal, Depositors argued Dollansky was not “an insured” under the Depositors’ policy.  Depositors argued that “its insured” referenced in Section 60A.41(a) only applied to the named insured (“i.e., the person purchasing the policy”). The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding that under the dictionary definition, an “insured” is “[s]omeone who is covered or protected by an insurance policy.”  Pursuant to Depositors’ policy, “Who Is An Insured” defines an “insured” as “[a]nyone . . . using with your [Karavan’s] permission a covered ‘auto’ you own, hire, or borrow.”   Because Dollansky, as a renter, was using the vehicle with Karavan’s permission, he was an “insured” under the policy.  The Dollansky decision provides guidance and interpretation regarding the application of Section 60A.41 to a renter who is also defined as an “insured” under the applicable policy.

-

RACHEL B. BEAUCHAMP HAS ARTICLE “62Q AND YOU” FEATURED IN MINNESOTA BENCH AND BAR

The December 2017 issue of Bench & Bar Minnesota magazine features an article by Rachel B. Beauchamp titled “62Q and You; An Esoteric Procedural Love Story”.

In the article, Beauchamp discusses a long-standing Minnesota statute which has suddenly gained new life with the Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision, W. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Nguyen, No. A17-0314, 2017 WL 4105224 (Minn. Ct. App. 9/18/2017) petition for cert filed, 10/16/2017.  With the  new decision, a long-argued but seldom applied legal procedure gives no-fault insurers a complete legal defense to no-fault arbitration claims in (very limited) specific circumstances. The December 2017 article can be found by clicking the download button.

-

Michael W. McNee Elected to The American Board of Trial Advocates “ABOTA”

CVMM congratulates Shareholder Michael W. McNee on his election to the American Board of Trial Advocates.  Membership is by invitation, only.  Any trial lawyer who is of high personal character and honorable reputation, and who is a member of the Bar of the State, province, district, territory or country in which he or she practices, and who has at least 10 civil jury trials to jury verdict is eligible to be invited.  Mike has had ­more than 30 jury trials go to verdict.  Judges, legislators, and community leaders believe that ABOTA encompasses what is “best” in the legal profession, and as we continue to strive to educate students and their parents, educators, judges, lawyers, and all civic leaders with respect to the principles of civility, professionalism, and the precious right to trial by jury.

-

CVMM Prepares and Serves Meal at Simpson Shelter

On September 29, 2017, Cousineau, Van Bergen, McNee and Malone was pleased to give back to our community.  Attorneys and staff prepared and served a meal for 110 guests at the Simpson Shelter in Minneapolis. The menu included open faced turkey and roast beef sandwiches served with mashed potatoes and gravy, peas, coleslaw and apple crisp with ice cream for dessert.

Attorneys and staff also made personal donations of bags of towels, washcloths, blankets, and travel size toiletries to aid the shelter in its services; Simpson Shelter has shelter space for 22 women and 44 men, and provides stability and shelter in increments of 30 days to help homeless men and women work towards obtaining stable and sustainable affordable housing options.

Additional information about Simpson Shelter, donation needs and/or volunteer opportunities can be found on their website  www.simpsonhousing.org.

-

Michael Barrett and David Wikoff Deliver Defense Verdict After 7 Day Jury Trial

Attorneys Michael Barrett and David Wikoff, working with the client’s corporate counsel, successfully obtained a defense verdict for their client following a seven day trial in Hennepin County.  Their client was a subcontractor involved in a construction dispute with a general contractor involving two building projects.  The general contractor sought damages for repairs and delays it claimed resulted from the subcontractor’s workmanship on the projects. The subcontractor also prevailed in its counterclaim for damages against the general contractor.

Attorneys Michael Barrett and David Wikoff practice in all areas of civil defense litigation, including construction law.

-

Attorney Fleming Prevails on Fair Campaign Practices Act Claim

Attorney Kimberly Fleming successfully represented a former Minnesota mayor who brought a Fair Campaign Practices Act violation petition to the Office of Administrative Hearings related to the November 2016 election.  Ms. Fleming prevailed on the matter before the 3-panel court which found for her client, held there was a violation, and issued a penalty against the party charged.

-

Attorneys Lindberg and Lindberg Achieve Complete Defense Victory on First Day of Trial Plus An Award of Trial Preparation Attorney Fees and Costs

CVMM lawyers Michael Lindberg and Peter Lindberg defended an international automobile auction company in a breach-of-contract lawsuit.  On the first day of trial in Minnesota state court in May 2017, they requested the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case because of his inability to prove liability or damages.  The judge, who had previously denied a motion for summary judgment, agreed, and not only dismissed the case with prejudice, but, in an extremely rare ruling, awarded the CVMM client its attorneys’ fees and expenses for trial preparation in a judgment against the plaintiff.

-

Minnesota Supreme Court Finds That The “Proceeds Awarded” In A First-Party Claim For Benefits As Described By Minnesota’s Bad Faith Statute Are Unambiguously Capped By The Insurance Policy.

Wilbur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Minnesota Supreme Court
4/5/2017

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Wilbur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company addressed a question of first impression regarding the imposition of damages against an insurance company for a bad faith denial of a first-party underinsured motorist (UIM) claim.  Minnesota Statutes Section 604.18 authorizes an award of “taxable costs” against an insurer who has denied a claim for insurance benefits without a reasonable basis; those costs are calculated based upon the amount of the “proceeds awarded” to a claimant following successful claims for breach of contract and bad faith.   The Supreme Court was asked whether the proceeds awarded could constitute the full amount of the damages calculated and awarded or whether the proceeds awarded are capped at the insurance policy limits.  In a decision which is favorable to insurance companies, the Court found that Section 604.18 unambiguously caps the proceeds awarded at the policy limits.

Plaintiff Wilbur was injured in a rear-end collision, and suffered significant injuries including a need for neck surgery and permanent nerve damage.   He received payment of the $100,000 limits from the at-fault party’s liability policy.  He then demanded $100,000 in UIM benefits from his insurer State Farm.    State Farm paid $1,200, and then offered an additional $26,800.  Wilbur denied the settlement offer and filed suit for breach of contract.

After a jury trial, Wilbur was awarded damages of $412,764.63.  The Court reduced the verdict to $255,956.59 after accounting for all collateral sources including the underlying liability policy limits.  The Court then entered judgment of $98,800 consisting of the full UIM limits of $100,000 minus the already paid $1,200.

After a finding that the insurance company unreasonably denied Wilbur benefits, Wilbur moved for an award of taxable costs per Minnesota 604.18, which permits an insured to recover, in addition to all other taxable fees and costs, a punitive remedy of “one-half the proceeds awarded that are in excess of an amount offered by the insurer at least ten days before the trial begins or $250,000, whichever is less.”  Minn. Stat. Section 604.18, subd. 3(a)(1).   The question, then, was whether Wilbur was entitled to recover one half of the difference between State Farm’s offer and the verdict (an additional $114,578.30) or one half of the difference between State Farm’s offer and the judgment entered by the court based on the policy limits (an additional $36,000).   After a statutory analysis, the Supreme Court found that Section 604.18 unambiguously caps the “proceeds awarded” at the policy limits.  The Court acknowledged Wilbur’s argument that this interpretation of Section 604.18 may sometimes to lead to an inadequate remedy for a claimant who has been unreasonably denied full policy benefits; however, the Court was clear that any revision to the unambiguous language in Section 604.18 must come from the legislature, not the judicial branch.

The Court’s decision provides some of the first clear guidance on the interpretation of the damages provisions of Section 604.18, which was first enacted in 2008 and does not yet have a wealth of case law to guide insurers and attorneys in parsing its provisions.  This decision strikes a balance between the Section 604.18 goal of penalizing insurers for unreasonable denials of benefits, and the reality that insurers must not be so concerned with the possibility of a bad-faith claim that they overpay on  non-meritorious claims.   Even with this limitation, Minnesota law including Section 608.14 still provides for significant non-policy payments following a claimant’s successful first-party claim including pre and post-judgment interest, ordinary taxable costs and disbursements, and an additional right to recovery of attorney fees of up to $100,000.  In a standard automobile UM/UIM context, this decision significantly decreases the exposure which an insurer could face for additional non-policy damages by capping the high end portion of the taxable cost calculation formula at the policy limits, while still leaving in place significant penalties for insurers if there is a finding that a denial of benefits was unreasonable.

 

-

Michael C. Lindberg Joins Cousineau, Van Bergen, McNee & Malone, P.A.

CVMM is pleased to welcome Michael C. Lindberg to the firm as an of counsel attorney!  Attorney Lindberg is a graduate of Carleton College and the University of Minnesota Law School.  Over the past forty years he has tried numerous cases in both state and federal court defending products liability claims, aviation claims, and agricultural claims arising out of chemical drift.

Lindberg was among the first lawyers in Minnesota to be certified a Civil Trial Specialist, a group of less than one percent of Minnesota attorneys.  Lindberg is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell, is listed in The Best Lawyers in America, and for several consecutive years has been voted a Minnesota Super Lawyer.

-

Rachel Beauchamp to co-chair MDLA Insurance Law Committee

CVMM congratulates Attorney Rachel B. Beauchamp on her new position as co-chair of the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association (MDLA) Insurance Law Committee.  The MDLA Insurance Law Committee prepares, hosts, and presents, educational meetings and seminars regarding insurance coverage issues of particular interest to insurance defense attorneys.

-

Peter M. Lindberg joins Cousineau, Van Bergen, McNee, & Malone, P.A.

CVMM is pleased to welcome Peter M. Lindberg to the firm as an associate attorney!  Attorney Lindberg is a graduate of St. Olaf College and William Mitchell College of Law; prior to law school he worked for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.   Prior to joining CVMM, Attorney Lindberg practiced law at a small insurance defense law firm in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.  Lindberg’s practice focuses on motor vehicle accident litigation as well as premises liability, commercial trucking, dramshop, and aviation litigation.

-

Christopher P. Malone Selected as one of the Top 100 Litigation Lawyers in the State of MN for 2017 by the American Society of Legal Advocates (ASLA).

CVMM congratulates Shareholder Christopher P. Malone on his selection as one of the Top 100 Litigation Lawyers in the State of MN for 2017 by the American Society of Legal Advocates (ASLA). Attorney Malone received this award from ASLA whose one central purpose is to identify and promote only the most outstanding legal talent throughout the country.  ASLA identifies itself as an invitation-only legal organization to lawyers who combine stellar legal credentials with proven commitment to community engagement, leadership, and the highest professional standards.  The Top 100 accounts for less than 1.5% of lawyers nationally.

-

Christopher P. Malone Delivers Defense Verdict After 3 Day Jury Trial.

Shareholder Christopher P. Malone was pleased to help his client achieve a defense verdict after a three day jury trial in Redwood County, MN.  The personal injury and property damage trial centered on the liability for a pick-up truck and semi-tractor accident.  Mr. Malone’s defense included his expert’s use of a computer simulation which allowed the jury to visualize the accident reconstruction evidence in real-time.  Mr. Malone practices in all areas of civil litigation defense and has significant experience in the specialized field of commercial trucking defense.

-

Meaghan C. Bryan to Present to New Lawyers at the MDLA Mid-Winter Conference.

Meaghan Bryan will present a seminar to new lawyers at the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association (MDLA) Mid-Winter Conference in Walker, MN on February 10, 2017.  The presentation, titled Trials & Trepidation: Making the Transition from Associate to Shareholder in an Ever-Changing Legal Profession, will look at law firms of the past, present, and future, and discuss the unique challenges faced by new attorneys in law firms today, including the “vanishing trial” phenomenon, along with some tips and words of wisdom for those attempting to navigate the partnership track.

-

Rachel B. Beauchamp Hones Her Trial Skills with MDLA Trial Technique Seminar.

In these days of waning numbers of jury trials, CVMM encourages its attorneys to keep their trial skills sharp through interactive trial seminars.  Attorney Beauchamp spent three days attending the MDLA Trial Techniques Seminar where she engaged in all aspects of a jury trial (voir dire, openings, direct and cross examination of fact witnesses, direct and cross examination of expert medical and reconstruction witnesses, and closing) and received feedback and updated litigation strategies from experienced local litigators.

-

The Minnesota Supreme Court issues second of two cases addressing interpretation and finality of Rule of Civil Procedure 5.04

Cole v. Wutzke
Minnesota Supreme Court
8/31/16

Cole v. Wutzke, published the same day as Gams v. Houghton (summarized here) relies upon and expands the discussion in Gams, but additionally specifically addresses whether an attorney’s mistake in failing to file within one year can constitute “excusable neglect”.  Cole, 2016 WL 4536505, at *1.  The Minnesota Supreme Court found that an attorney’s ignorance of the application of Rule 5.04 does not doom a Rule 60.02(a) analysis and reiterated that whether specific conduct constitutes “excusable neglect” is a fact-specific enquiry requiring complete analysis of the four Finden factors.

Like Gams, Cole was pending on July 1, 2013, and, therefore, was required to be filed on or before July 1, 2014 to avoid dismissal.  The parties actively litigated the case between July, 2013 through March, 2014.  Id.  On July 22, 2014, defense counsel notified plaintiff’s counsel that the case was dismissed for failure to timely file.  Plaintiff’s counsel was aware of the new Rule, but had not realized it applied to cases pending when the Rule went into effect.  Plaintiff’s counsel then filed the case; defense counsel moved for dismissal per Rule 5.04 and plaintiff’s counsel moved to vacate per Rule 60.02.

The plaintiff argued that his attorney’s neglect was excusable because the on-line version of amended Rule 5.04 did not explain that it applied to pending actions.  Cole, 2016 WL 4536505, at 2. In addition, the plaintiff argued that he should not suffer a complete dismissal of his claims as a result of his counsel’s unilateral mistake.  Id. at 2.  The district court dismissed the case, finding that counsel’s ignorance of the law could not be “‘excusable neglect’” because such an exception to the mandatory dismissal of Rule 5.04 would “‘swallow the rule’”.  Id.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded finding that the district court abused its discretion because Minnesota courts “have long relieved unwitting clients” of “the consequences of their attorney’s unilateral errors.”  Id. (citation omitted). The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and addressed whether Rule 5.04 should be considered as a statute of limitation barring any reopening of the case and whether an attorney’s unilateral mistake could be considered “excusable neglect” pursuant to Rule 60.02(a).

The Court found that Rule 5.04 is a non-jurisdictional procedure rule intended to govern the orderly transaction of business.  Id. at 2.  As a result, the Court reiterated its holdings in Gams, including the applicability of Rule 60.02 and that a district court must address and make findings on all four of the Finder factors.  Id. The Court specifically acknowledged that mistakes of law may afford grounds for relief on the basis of excusable neglect.  In addition, the Court reiterated that even if an attorney’s neglect is inexcusable, if such neglect is purely that of counsel a party should not be punished.  Cole, 2016 WL 4536505, at 3.

The Court did not entirely preclude dismissals for failure to file within one year and it specifically cautioned that not all mistakes of law are subject to relief; it is generally within the district court’s sound discretion whether the excuse offered is true and reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, any such decision requires a fact-specific enquiry.  The Court reversed and remanded for a complete application of the Finden factors in light of the particular facts of the case.  This case ensures that an attorney’s unilateral mistake in filing will not be a substantive win for a defendant, although it appears that was the original goal of the new Rule.  However, it offers a slight ray of hope that Rule 5.04 will not be completely meaningless to defense attorneys in the future and failure to file within one-year may be at least a small factor considered in an analysis of the Finden factors in the future.

-

The Minnesota Supreme Court issues first of two cases addressing interpretation and finality of Rule of Civil Procedure 5.04

Gams v. Houghton
Minnesota Court of Appeals
8/31/16

Gams v. Houghton is the first of a pair of recent cases Minnesota Supreme Court cases interpreting Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 5.04, which was newly enacted in July, 2013, and provides that any case not filed with the Court within one-year after service on the first defendant is deemed dismissed with prejudice.  Gams, and its companion case Cole v. Wutzke (summarized here) establish that Rule 60.02 motions to vacate  applies to Rule 5.04 dismissals as well as affirming the constitutionality of a dismissal based upon Rule 60.02.  Gams arose out of a physical altercation between two brothers in law; it was pending on the date that Rule 5.04 became effective which meant its filing deadline was July 1, 2014.  The case was commenced by service on March 22, 2013.  Between April, 2013 through February, 2014, the parties litigated, including exchanging written discovery and responses. In May, 2014, the parties discussed possible mediation.  Id.  On July 17, 2014, plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter requesting an update regarding possible resolution.  In response, defense counsel stated the case was deemed dismissed with prejudice as of July 1, 2014. Plaintiff’s counsel was unaware of the amendment to Rule 5.04.

The case was then filed and the district court dismissed the case pursuant to Rule 5.04 the same day.  The plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal for a violation of his right to due process and pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(a) on the grounds of “excusable neglect.”  The district court denied the motion to vacate, finding that a Rule 60.02 motion for relief from an order did not apply to an automatic dismissal under Rule 5.04.  In addition, the district court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the four Finden factors required to obtain relief under Rule 60.02.  The district court did not address the plaintiff’s due process argument.

On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded finding that Rule 60.02 does allow a plaintiff to move for relief from an automatic Rule 5.04 dismissal.  In addition, the Court of Appeals reversed because the district court failed to make findings on each of the four Finden factors utilized to determine if a party is entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 60.02(a), mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; a court analyzing such a motion must determine: (1) whether the moving party has a “debatably meritorious claim”; and (2) whether there is a “‘reasonable excuse’” for the movant’s failure or neglect to act; and (3) whether the movant “‘acted with due diligence’” after learning of the error or omission; and  (4)    whether “‘no substantial prejudice will result to the other party’” if relief is granted.

The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to address: (1) whether Rule 5.04 violated a constitutional right to due process; and (2) whether Rule 60.02 is applicable to a Rule 5.04 dismissal and, (3) if so, whether the district court abused its discretion.

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s constitutional analysis found that Rule 5.04 does not violate a litigant’s due process rights because the plaintiff receives notice and process sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements.  The Court explained that Rule 5.04 provides notice of the possibility of dismissal well in advance of any consequences.  In addition, Rule 60.02 provides for post-deprivation process.

The Court then determined that Rule 60.02 applies to dismissal under Rule 5.04 because the Rule 60.02 language is broad and applies to all “final judgment[s] … order[s] [and] proceeding[s],” except for “marriage dissolution decree[s].  Of particular import, the Court confirmed that an action is automatically dismissed following the expiration of the one-year filing period and explained that a defendant does not need to take any action to achieve that dismissal.  However, the Court then explained that any such dismissal, whether by operation of law after one year, or by order of the court after filing, falls within Rule 60.02’s purview to grant relief under the appropriate circumstances.

Finally, the Court found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to make any findings of fact on each of the four Finden factors.  Therefore, the Court reversed and remanded the case.  This case serves to ensure that any dismissals per Rule 5.04 will be the subject of post-dismissal motions to reopen the case and substantially limit any usefulness of Rule 5.04 to defendants.