Statutes of Limitations (MINNESOTA)

​

Personal Injury - 2 yrs. [M.S.A. § 541.07]

Wrongful Death - 3 yrs. from date of death, but no later than 6 yrs. from act/omission (no later than 4 yrs. if Med Mal involved) [M.S.A. § 573.02]

Med Mal - 4 yrs. [M.S.A. § 541.076]

Property Damage - 6 yrs. [M.S.A. § 541.05]

Strict Product Liability - 4 yrs. [M.S.A. § 541.05]

Contracts (Written and Oral) - 6 yrs. [M.S.A.§ 541.05]

Contracts for Sale (goods) and Breach of Warranty - 4 yrs. (from tender of delivery) [M.S.A. § 336.2-725]

UM Subrogation Claims - 6 yrs. [Oanes v. Allstate Ins. Co., 617 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. 2000)]

Statutory Warranty Claims Under M.S.A. Section 327A.02 - Loss or damage must be reported to vendor or home improvement contractor within 6 mos. after discovery of loss/damage [M.S.A. § 327A.03]

Claims Against Persons Furnishing Design/Planning/Supervision/Materials/Construction of Real Property - 2 yrs. after discovery (also, statute of repose applies - see discussion below) [M.S.A. § 541.051]

 

“Discovery rule” is usually not available (only “some” damage is enough to trigger the running of statute of limitations) [MacRae v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 753 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 2008)]

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Statutes of Repose (MINNESOTA)

​

Products - None.

Construction of Real Property - 10 yrs. (12 yrs. if cause of action accrues during 9th or 10th year) [M.S.A. § 541.051]

 

 

​

​

​

​

 

Claims Against Public/Gov. Entities (NOTE: “sovereign immunity” rules may apply) (MINNESOTA)

​

Against All Entities - Notice within 180 days (1 yr. if death is involved) [M.S.A. §§ 3.736; 466.05]

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

Comparative Negligence (MINNESOTA)

​

Modified comparative (damages are diminished in proportion to Plaintiff’s fault, but Plaintiff cannot recover if he is 51% at fault) [M.S.A. § 604.01]

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

Made Whole Doctrine (MWD) (MINNESOTA)

​

MWD is recognized, but parties can contract around it (with clear and express language). 

 

General rule is that subrogation, whether arising from equity or contract, will be denied prior to full recovery.  Even when subrogation rights arise by virtue of agreement, terms of subrogation will nonetheless be governed by equitable principles, unless agreement clearly and explicitly provides to the contrary. Absent express contract terms to contrary, subrogation will not be allowed where insured’s total recovery is less than insured’s actual loss [Westendorf by Westendorf v. Stasson, 330 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. 1983)]

 

Provision of health insurance contract providing for subrogation even when insured has not been fully compensated was enforceable, notwithstanding the general rule that subrogation will not be allowed where insured’s total recovery is less than insured’s actual loss; the general rule does not invalidate express contractual language to the contrary [Hershey v. Physicians Health Plan of Minnesota, Inc., 498 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. App. 1993)]

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

Economic Loss Doctrine (ELD) (Assuming No Injury to Person or Damage to “Other Property”) (MINNESOTA)

​

ELD has been codified and the economic loss recoverable in tort does not include economic loss due to damage to the goods themselves. But actions based on fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation are not barred by ELD.  [M.S.A. § 604.10]

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

Certificate/Affidavit Of Merit Requirements (Claims Against Licensed Professionals) (MINNESOTA)

​

In professional malpractice actions against architects, engineers, land surveyors, and other professionals, Plaintiff must serve an affidavit stating that the facts of the case have been reviewed by party’s attorney with an expert whose qualifications provide a reasonable expectation that the expert’s opinions could be admissible at trial and that, in the opinion of this expert, Defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care and by that action caused injury to Plaintiff. [M.S.A. § 544.42].  The requirements for Med Mal cases are very similar [M.S.A. § 145.682]

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

Landlord/Tenant Subrogation (MINNESOTA)

​

Case-by-case approach, courts must ascertain parties’ expectations [RAM Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rohde, 820 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2012)].

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

Reimbursement of Deductible(s) (MINNESOTA)

​

Auto - Pro rata.  Property - no law available.

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

MedPay and PIP (MINNESOTA)

​

MedPay and PIP - For the most part, no subrogation is allowed.  However, Insurer is entitled to indemnity from insurer for a commercial vehicle of more than 5,500 pounds weight (the right of indemnity can be enforceable only through arbitration procedures).  Further, Insurer is subrogated: (1) against a person whose negligence in another state caused the accident; and (2) to a claim based on an intentional tort, strict or statutory liability, or negligence other than negligence in the maintenance, use, or operation of a motor vehicle. [M.S.A. § 65B.53]

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

Liability of Parents (MINNESOTA)

​

$1,000 for willful or malicious acts [M.S.A. § 540.18].

​

 

 

​

​

​

​

Joint Liability (MINNESOTA)

​

Several liability (Plaintiff can recover from each Defendant only that Defendant’s share of liability).  Exceptions (joint and several liability applies): (1) Defendants who are more than 50% at fault; (2) where there is collusion among Defendants; and (3) intentional and environmental tort cases.  [M.S.A. § 604.02].

 

 

​

​

​

​

 

Independent Cause of Action for Intentional or Negligent Evidence Spoliation (MINNESOTA)

​

Action for negligent spoliation of evidence can be stated under existing negligence law without creating new tort [Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc., 456 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 1990)]

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

Conflicts of Law (MINNESOTA)

​

Torts - Court will analyze 2 relevant considerations: advancement of the forum’s governmental interests and application of the better rule of law [DeRemer v. Pacific Intermountain Exp. Co., 353 N.W.2d 694 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)].  Contracts - Court will apply the “choice influencing considerations” methodology [Milbank Mut. Ins. Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 332 N.W.2d 160 (Minn. 1983)].  The “choice influencing considerations” methodology is usually defined as an approach under which the court resolves a conflict by considering which law will better promote: (1) predictability of result, (2) preservation of interstate or international order, (3) simple application by the judiciary, (4) the forum’s governmental interests, and (5) application of the better law.