§
Subdivision 1.Indemnification required.
An employer shall defend and indemnify its employee for civil damages, penalties, or fines claimed or levied against the employee, provided that the employee:
(1) was acting in the performance of the duties of the employee's position;
(2) was not guilty of intentional misconduct, willful neglect of the duties of the employee's position, or bad faith; and
(3) has not been indemnified by another person for the same damages, penalties, or fines.
§
Subd. 2.Exception.
Subdivision 1 does not apply to:
(1) employees of the state or a municipality governed by section 3.736 or 466.07;
(2) employees who are subject to a contract or other agreement governing indemnification rights;
(3) employees and employers who are governed by indemnification provisions under section 302A.521, 317A.521, or 322C.0408, or similar laws of this state or another state specifically governing indemnification of employees of business or nonprofit corporations, limited liability companies, or other legal entities; or
(4) indemnification rights for a particular liability specifically governed by other law.
Notes of Decisions
First Class Valet Servs., LLC v. Gleason, 892 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 28× “OPINION HOOTEN, Judge Appellant employer challenges the dismissal of its claim resulting from respondent employee’s alleged negligent performance of his duties, arguing that the district court erred in interpreting Minn. Stat. § 181.970 to preclude such claim.”
Cenveo Corp. v. Celumsolutions Software Gmbh & Co. Kg, 504 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Minnesota 2007).
· cites it 13× “That provision requires an employer to defend and indemnify its employee for civil damages claimed against the employee when the employee was acting in the performance of his duties, unless the employee was guilty of “intentional misconduct, willful neglect of the duties of the…”
BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Kuskie (D. Minnesota 2023).
· cites it 21× “The shareholders argue that his indemnification claim under Minn. Stat. § 181.970 is preempted by Minn.”
Jama v. Wright Cnty. (D. Minnesota 2023).
· cites it 4× “Hirsch replied that Minnesota’s indemnification statute ( Minn. Stat. § 181.970 ) makes indemnification automatic.”
Pitman Farms v. Kuehl Poultry LLC (D. Minnesota 2020).
“§ 181.970, subd. 2(3) (providing employee indemnification provision does not apply when covered by other laws “specifically governing indemnification of employees of business or nonprofit corporations, limited liability companies, or other legal entities”); id.”
— Minn. Stat. § 181.970(1) — 1 case
Cenveo Corp. v. Celumsolutions Software Gmbh & Co. Kg, 504 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Minnesota 2007).
“That provision requires an employer to defend and indemnify its employee for civil damages claimed against the employee when the employee was acting in the performance of his duties, unless the employee was guilty of “intentional misconduct, willful neglect of the duties of the…”
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.