In Broton v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co., the case involved a minor injured in a car accident seeking underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from the insurer of the at-fault driver's vehicle, where the UIM coverage limits were equal to the liability limits. The trial court ordered arbitration of the UIM claim, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that the 1985 amendments to Minnesota's No-Fault Act did not convert UIM coverage to "difference of limits" coverage, allowing recovery when damages exceed liability limits even if UIM limits do not exceed them. Additionally, an unaccepted tender of the liability limits did not constitute "payment" under the statute, preserving the right to pursue UIM benefits.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Myers, the defendant appealed his jury convictions for possessing stolen property and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, which stemmed from a police officer's identification of him via a photo display as the driver who abandoned a truck containing stolen outboard motors, along with corroborating testimony from an informant. The court affirmed the convictions, determining that the photo lineup was not impermissibly suggestive, the state's delayed disclosure of the informant did not violate the defendant's right to a fair trial, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. It modified the sentence downward to the presumptive term, however, on the ground that the monetary value of the property could not serve as an aggravating factor for departure because it constituted an element of the offense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act concerning two computer sales businesses in Albert Lea, Minnesota, that began operations in 1982; one used the name C/M Computer Services while the other adopted CBM Computer Center in 1985, leading to numerous documented instances of customer confusion. The trial court found a violation of the Act and issued an injunction allowing the second business to continue using a modified version of the name, such as "INFO PRO d/b/a CBM Computer Center," subject to size, listing, and notification requirements. The appellate court affirmed the finding of a violation and the need for injunctive relief but reversed the portions permitting limited continued use of the similar name, holding that such modifications were inconsistent with the trial court's own findings of confusion and the relief required by the statute, and remanded for a permanent and total ban.

business & regulatory

This case arose from a fatal two-car collision on a slushy, snow-covered section of Shepard Road in St. Paul, where the plaintiff's daughter was killed when the oncoming driver lost control; the plaintiff settled with the other driver and then sued the city, initially alleging negligent road design and later amending to claim negligent maintenance through failure to plow, sand, salt, or install concrete median barriers. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the city was immune under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6 because decisions about snow removal and barrier installation were discretionary planning-level acts rather than ministerial duties, and under Minn. Stat. § 466.03, subd. 4 because the road conditions resulted from natural weather without any affirmative negligent act by the city creating an artificial hazard. The court also noted that the plaintiff's amended complaint had eliminated the barrier claim, properly limiting the issues before it, and found no genuine issues of material fact precluding judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved an employee who alleged his employers terminated him due to his marital status after discovering he was living with his unmarried fiancée, in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act; he also claimed unauthorized deductions from his wages for rent. The employers had offered and the employee had verbally accepted a settlement through the Department of Human Rights, but he later refused to sign and filed a private lawsuit. The court affirmed summary judgment enforcing the settlement agreement as valid and binding based on the verbal acceptance. It further held that wage deductions made during employment were consensual under the employment contract and thus not subject to Minn. Stat. § 181.79, but the post-termination deduction of $175 without written authorization violated the statute, entitling the employee to double damages of $350.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Carl Thurner, who was terminated from his role as Program Director at the Philip Chemical Dependency Center and denied unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that his discharge was for misconduct. The court affirmed the Commissioner's determination, holding that Thurner engaged in misconduct by arguing with his employer over pay in the presence of patients, failing to maintain required time records or submit reports, refusing assigned duties such as the smoking program and adolescent work, disregarding instructions on patient file documentation, and walking out of a staff meeting. The court reasoned that these actions demonstrated willful disregard of the employer's interests rather than isolated incidents and that the personnel manual's optional disciplinary steps did not apply to or excuse the serious breaches involved.

labor & employment