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  … Read more

Minnesota Court of Appeals holds that an out-of-state insurer that is not licensed to write motor-vehicle-accident insurance in Minnesota has no obligation under the Act to provide basic economic loss benefits to it insured injured in an accident in Minnesota.

Founders Insurance Company v. Yates Minnesota Court of Appeals 2-29-16 In this Minnesota Court of Appeals case interpreting Minnesota’s No-Fault Act, the Court found that an out-of-state insurer that is not licensed to write motor-vehicle-accident insurance in Minnesota has no obligation under the Act to provide basic economic loss benefits to it insured injured in an accident in Minnesota. Founders Insurance Company (“Founders”) insured Yates pursuant to an Illinois policy of insurance, issued to Yates while he was an Illinois resident.  Founders is licensed to write dram-shop insurance in Minnesota, but is not to write or issue motor-vehicle insurance in  … Read more

United State District Court determined, as a matter of first impression, that the costs related to the creation of an e-discovery platform are not taxable

Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services, v BendTec, Inc. United States District Court District of Minnesota 2-24-16 In this question of first impression in the Eighth Circuit regarding an unusual analysis of taxable costs and disbursements following the conclusion of a case, United States District Court Judge Michael J. Davis found that costs related to the creation and management of an e-discovery platform were not recoverable, but e-discovery costs that qualify as “exemplification fees” comparable to the cost of making copies are recoverable. After resolution of the underlying case in BendTec, Inc’s favor, BendTec moved for the recovery of more  … Read more

Minnesota Supreme Court determines a Rule 68 offer which provides double-costs to a plaintiff is substantive not procedural when determining preemption between federal and state Rules.

Boyd v. BNSF Railway Company Minnesota Supreme Court January 27, 2016 A new Minnesota Supreme Court decision addresses the interplay between Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 68 and federal law in the FELA context.  Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 68 governs offers of settlement and judgment in Minnesota cases and provides a cost-shifting mechanism designed to encourage settlement of claims by imposing fees and costs upon a party who failed to accept a settlement offer or offer of judgment that is more favorable than the trial results.  Minnesota Rule 68 also has a federal counterpart but it is significantly different  … Read more