subrogation claim in Minnesota

2002Id. at 103, 245 N.W.2d at 848.

1985Whether a settlement extinguishes an insurer’s subrogation rights when the settle- ment was procured by the tortfeasor and his insurer after notice of the insurer’s subrogation claim was addressed in Travelers Indemnity Company v. Vaccari, 310 Minn. 97 , 245 N.W.2d 844 (1976).

2016Minn.Stat. § 548.251, relating to collateral sources, operates to prevent double recoveries while simultaneously protecting injured parties from undercompensation by ensuring that the total amount of collateral sources deducted from the award ex- *356 eludes “amounts plaintiffs] must ultimately pay over to a subrogee.” Buck v. Schneider, 413 N.W.2d 569, 572 (Minn.App.1987); Here, BCBS satisfied all of the claims of Ms. Auers’s medical providers and ' acquired a subrogation claim for the amount it paid to the providers.

2005The Greens suggest that Kahnke’s “failure to mention any subrogation interest prior to trial” renders any subsequent assertion “improper and untimely.” But this issue was addressed in Buck , where this court held that a subrogation claim was properly asserted despite the fact that it was first raised in response to the district court’s collateral-source order. 413 N.W.2d at 571 .

1994In Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation, 258 N.W.2d 891, 893-94 (Minn.1977), we allowed an employee to settle a tort claim for damages not recoverable under workers’ compensation without affecting the employer’s subrogation claim against the tortfeasor for compensation benefits paid.

1993Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation, 258 N.W.2d 891, 893 (Minn.1977).

1989However, this court stated, “the supreme court held that the no-fault carrier’s subrogation claim for basic economic loss benefits paid can be asserted only when the assured has received a double recovery, and only against the insured and not directly against the tortfeasor.” Id. at 756 (citing Milbrandt, 372 N.W.2d at 705-06 ).

1987See Milbrandt v. American Legion Post of Mora, 372 N.W.2d 702, 705 (Minn.1985) (footnote omitted) (“a reparation obligor may assert a subrogation claim to recover basic economic loss benefits paid only when the insured has received a double recovery”); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Galloway, 373 N.W.2d 301 , 304 n. 1 (Minn.1985) (an uninsured motorist carrier may assert a subrogation claim, “provided the claimant has first been made whole”).

2016Tenants had $300,000 of renters insurance, leaving them personally exposed in the amount of at least $170,000. 1 Both parties agreed that’ the' equitable framework' for deciding whether State Farm could maintain a subrogation claim against Tenants was established by our court in RAM, 820 N.W.2d at 14-16 .

2016Under the factors set forth in RAM Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde, 820 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2012), the landlord can proceed on a subrogation claim for damage to the tenants’ own apartment, but not for damage to other property belonging to the landlord.

1994Vaccari, 310 Minn. at 103 , 245 N.W.2d at 848 ; Heuer, 499 N.W.2d at 529 ; Allum v. MedCenter Health Care, 371 N.W.2d 557, 559 (Minn.App.1985).

1985Whether a settlement extinguishes an insurer’s subrogation rights when the settle- ment was procured by the tortfeasor and his insurer after notice of the insurer’s subrogation claim was addressed in Travelers Indemnity Company v. Vaccari, 310 Minn. 97 , 245 N.W.2d 844 (1976).

2005The Greens cite Group Health, Inc. v. Heuer, 499 N.W.2d 526, 529 (Minn.App. 1993), for the proposition that, for a subro-gation right to be asserted, “actual notice” of the subrogation interest must be given.

1994Vaccari, 310 Minn. at 103 , 245 N.W.2d at 848 ; Heuer, 499 N.W.2d at 529 ; Allum v. MedCenter Health Care, 371 N.W.2d 557, 559 (Minn.App.1985).

1986The trial court granted partial summary judgment, establishing the amount of damages in the subrogation claim at $50,000, on the basis of our decision in State Farm Insurance Companies v. Galajda, 316 N.W.2d 564 (Minn.1982).

1986Id. at 566 . *521 The issue directly presented in Galajda was whether a recipient of uninsured motorist benefits could settle a liability claim separately from the subrogation claim of the insurer where the settlement preserved the insurer’s subrogation claim, even though the insured had agreed not to enter any settlements not consented to by the insurer.

2026Id. at 861 ; see Melrose Gates, LLC v. Moua, 875 N.W.2d 814, 820-22 (Minn. 2016) (applying de novo review to district court’s dismissal of a subrogation claim when the dismissal was not based on the weight of the equities or on findings of disputed facts).

2019See Minn. Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. , 574 N.W.2d 54 , 62 (Minn. 1998) (declining to "carve out a wholly new cause of action" by allowing an employer's subrogation claim for workers' compensation benefits against a common-enterprise party, stating that "[c]reating a new right that is not within the language of Minnesota's statutory workers' compensation scheme, and is in fact contradictory to the plain language of the Act," is a "role ... fulfilled solely by the legislature"); see also Parsonv.

2014Id. at 57 ; see also Abraham, 639 N.W.2d at 349 (“In Tyroll, . . . [w]e concluded that the claims were common law issues triable to a jury because of the essential nature and character of the controversy, even though the [WCA] statutorily created the right of the employer-insurer to intervene and maintain the action as a subrogee long after our constitution was adopted.”).

2014Id. at 57 ; see also Abraham, 639 N.W.2d at 349 ("In Tyroll , ... [w]e concluded that the claims were common law issues triable to a jury because of the essential nature and character of the controversy, even though the [WCA] statutorily created the right of the employer-insurer to intervene and maintain the action as a subrogee long after our constitution was adopted.”).

2013See Nordstrom, 495 N.W.2d at 856 (stating that after resolving the injured party’s UIM claim, the UIM carrier may bring a subrogation claim against the tortfeasor to recover “all or a portion of the sums the underinsurer had paid”).

2013See Nordstrom, 495 N.W.2d at 856 (stating that after resolving the injured party’s UIM claim, the UIM carrier may bring a subrogation claim against the tortfeasor to recover “all or a portion of the sums the underinsurer had paid”).

2001See Regie de l’assurance Auto, du Quebec v. Jensen, 399 N.W.2d 85, 92 (Minn.1987) (refusing to allow a relation-back amendment to a subrogation claim that should have been brought as a wrongful-death claim by an appointed trustee, finding that the original action was a “legal nullity” and that there was nothing to which the attempted amendment could relate back). *272 Van Slooten has never commenced an action against a personal representative of Schneider-Janzen’s estate.

1996Folstad v. Eder, 467 N.W.2d 608, 612 (Minn.1991).