The liability of an employer prescribed by this chapter is exclusive and in the place of any other liability to such employee, personal representative, surviving spouse, parent, any child, dependent, next of kin, or other person entitled to recover damages on account of such injury or death. If an employer other than the state or any municipal subdivision thereof fails to insure or self-insure liability for compensation to injured employees and their dependents, an injured employee, or legal representatives or, if death results from the injury, any dependent may elect to claim compensation under this chapter or to maintain an action in the courts for damages on account of such injury or death. In such action it is not necessary to plead or prove freedom from contributory negligence. The defendant may not plead as a defense that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, that the employee assumed the risk of employment, or that the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the employee, unless it appears that such negligence was willful on the part of the employee. The burden of proof to establish such willful negligence is upon the defendant. For the purposes of this chapter the state and each municipal subdivision thereof is treated as a self-insurer when not carrying insurance at the time of the injury or death of an employee.
Notes of Decisions
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis, 923 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 2019).
· cites it 26× “" Minn. Stat. § 176.031 . Similarly, the exclusivity provision in the human rights act states: "as to acts declared unfair by [the human rights act], the procedure herein provided shall, while pending, be exclusive.”
Buck v. Freeman, 619 N.W.2d 793 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 39× “The trustee of her heirs brought a negligence action against the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Plan, contending it breached its statutory duty to conduct on-site safety inspections, but the district court ruled the plan was immune from suit under Minn. Stat. §…”
Hildebrandt v. Whirlpool Corp., 364 N.W.2d 394 (Minn. 1985).
· cites it 10× “STION OF LAW CERTIFIED Whether a complaint by several employees against their employer, which alleges that the employer concealed a known workplace hazard and thereby committed assault and battery and fraud and misrepresentation against the employees, falls within the…”
Rezac v. Maier (In Re Maier), 38 B.R. 231 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1984).
· cites it 9× “The absence of compensation insurance triggers the provisions of section 176.031 1 which *234 provides that in the event of an employer’s failure to maintain insurance, an injured employee may nonetheless elect to claim compensation under the workers’ compensation chapter or he…”
Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “And Minnesota's No-Fault Automobile Insurance statute modifies the common law "action in negligence accruing as a result of injury arising out of the operation, ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle" by providing that, in such an action, "no person shall recover…”
Egeland v. State, 408 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 12× “The district court dismissed the Egelands’ suit on the ground that Walter Egeland was, as a matter of law, a state employee, and thus the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, Minn.Stat. § 176.031 (1986), prohibits the Egelands from suing the state in tort.”
Kaluza v. Home Ins. Co., 403 N.W.2d 230 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 8× “031 preclude plaintiffs claims of misrepresentation and fraud, abuse of process and fraud upon the courts, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and for punitive damages? Minn.Stat. § 176.031 provides in part: “The liability of an employer prescribed by…”
Kaess v. Armstrong Cork Co., 403 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 11× “MacArthur moved for partial dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, or for partial summary judgment, citing the workers compensation exclusive remedy provision, Minn.Stat. § 176.031 (1984). The Dakota County District Court denied the motion and, pursuant to Minn.”
Karst v. FC Hayer Co., Inc., 447 N.W.2d 180 (Minn. 1989).
· cites it 6× “The exclusive remedy provision of the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act appears in Minn.Stat. § 176.031 (1988). It provides in pertinent part as follows: The liability of an employer by this chapter is exclusive and in place of any other liability to such employee, personal…”
U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. James Courtney Law Off., P.A., 662 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 8× “Specialty again relied on the express language of the policy as the basis for denying coverage but also argued that the Workers’ Compensation Act, Minn.Stat. § 176.031 (2002), was the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries.”
Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., 634 N.W.2d 401 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 4× “" Minn. Stat. § 176.031 (2000). When a compensable injury is caused by a party other than the employer, the Act gives the employee a right to workers' compensation benefits from the employer while preserving the employee's common law right of action against the tortfeasor.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.