Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 176.195 (2026)

Revocation Of Insurer's License

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Grounds.

Where an insurer, or an agent of an insurer, has been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, or culpable, persistent, and unreasonable delay in making payments or settlements under this chapter, the commissioner of commerce shall revoke the license of the insurer to write workers' compensation insurance.

Subd. 1a.Additional grounds.

Where an insurer or agent of an insurer has failed to comply with provisions of this chapter, other than the provisions in subdivision 1, the commissioner of commerce may revoke the license of the insurer to write workers' compensation insurance.

Subd. 2.Commencement of proceedings.

The commissioner of commerce may act under subdivision 1 or subdivision 1a upon the commissioner's own motion, the recommendation of the commissioner of labor and industry, the chief administrative law judge, or the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals, or the complaint of any interested person.

Subd. 3.Complaint, answer; hearing.

A complaint against an insurer shall include a notice and order for hearing, shall be in writing and shall specify clearly the grounds upon which the license is sought to be suspended or revoked. The insurer shall file a written answer to the complaint within 20 days of service of the complaint. The hearing shall be conducted under chapter 14.

Subd. 4.

[Repealed, 1987 c 332 s 117]

Subd. 5.

[Repealed, 1987 c 332 s 117]

Subd. 6.

[Repealed, 1987 c 332 s 117]

Subd. 7.Report to commissioner of commerce.

The commissioner may send reports to the commissioner of commerce regarding compliance with this chapter by insurers writing workers' compensation insurance. A report may include a recommendation for revocation of an insurer's license under this section and may also recommend the imposition of other penalties which may be imposed upon insurers by the commissioner of commerce.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1970–2004 · leading case: Jorgensen v. Knutson, 662 N.W.2d 893 (Minn. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jorgensen v. Knutson, 662 N.W.2d 893 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 4× “In Zakrajshek , we interpreted a statute governing the notice required to cancel a workers' compensation insurance policy, Minn.Stat. § 176.195, subd. 1 (1974). Zakrajshek, 307 Minn.”

Westrom v. Minnesota Dep't of Labor & Indus., 686 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 4× “[6] The dissent suggests that the data reflected in the orders was in the possession of DOLI, pursuant to the employers reporting requirements of Minn.Stat. § 176.195, subd. 1 (2002), before the ISU began its investigation, and therefore that the data was not collected as a part…”

Lauer v. Tri-Mont Coop. Creamery, 178 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. 1970). “§ 176.195. These statutes, considered together, evince a legislative intent that insurers should fulfill the compensation obligations incurred by an insured employer during the effective period of a policy in the absence of some substantial reason as distinguished from some…”

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.