§
Subdivision 1.Claim notification.
A plan of reparation security may prescribe a period of not less than six months after the date of accident within which an insured or any other person entitled to claim basic economic loss benefits, or anyone acting on their behalf, must notify the reparation obligor or its agent, of the accident and the possibility of a claim for economic loss benefits. Failure to provide notice will not render a person ineligible to receive benefits unless actual prejudice is shown by the reparation obligor, and then only to the extent of the prejudice. The notice may be given in any reasonable fashion.
§
Subd. 2.Disability or treatment lapses.
A plan of reparation security may provide that in any instance where a lapse occurs in the period of disability or in the medical treatment of a person with respect to whose injury basic economic loss benefits have been paid and a person subsequently claims additional benefits based upon an alleged recurrence of the injury for which the original claim for benefits was made, the obligor may require reasonable medical proof of such alleged recurrence; provided, that in no event shall the aggregate benefits payable to any person exceed the maximum limits specified in the plan of security, and provided further that such coverages may contain a provision terminating eligibility for benefits after a prescribed period of lapse of disability and medical treatment, which period shall not be less than one year.
Notes of Decisions
Terrell v. State Farm Ins. Co., 346 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 44× “The trial court held that an insured's failure to give notice of accident within the time period prescribed by the insurance policy issued in conformity with Minn.Stat. § 65B.55, subd. 1 (1982) is not an absolute bar to no-fault basic economic loss benefit claims made under the…”
Arbitration Between Thomas v. W. Nat'l Ins. Grp., 562 N.W.2d 289 (Minn. 1997).
· cites it 16× “" Minn.Stat. § 65B.55, subd. 2 (1996). Western urges this court to define "disability" as used in the lapse provision by adopting a definition of that term provided in a different provision of the No-Fault Act, namely section 65B.”
Naylor v. Minnesota Daily, 342 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 65B.55, subd. 1 provides that insurers may require policy holders to give notice of claims within six months or longer.”
Entzion v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 675 N.W.2d 925 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “1, 3 (2002), and permits an insurer to require notice of an accident within six months after the accident or limit the insured’s recovery of no-fault benefits for accidents reported after six months, Minn. Stat. § 65B.55, subd. 1 (2002). The No-Fault Act also permits an insurer…”
Andros v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 359 N.W.2d 46 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 5× “ISSUE Did the trial court err in ruling that Andros is not entitled to no-fault benefits since she failed to give notice within six months of the accident? ANALYSIS The Minnesota Supreme Court held that under Minn.Stat. § 65B.55, subd. 1 (1982), an auto insurer is absolved from…”
Chacos v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 368 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 65B.55, subd. 2 (1984). The only question presented at trial was whether there had been a lapse; the amount of income loss was not at issue.”
Ferguson v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Grp. Co., 348 N.W.2d 730 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 3× “*734 Nor do we find any problem as a result of the language in Minn.Stat. § 65B.55, subd. 2 which provides that an insurance policy may terminate eligibility for benefits after a prescribed period of lapse of disability and medical treatment, which period shall not be less than…”
Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Clementson, 431 N.W.2d 895 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “Dairyland responds to MSI’s arguments by noting that this action is governed by Minnesota’s No-Fault Act, Minn. Stat. § 65B.55, subd. 1 (1978) which reads: Subd.”
Loram Maint. of Way, Inc. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 354 N.W.2d 111 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “However, the court also stated: Were it not for the fact that section 65B.55, subd. 1, specifically authorizes an insurer to insert this type of notice provision in its policy, we would have no difficulty in rejecting appellant’s contentions.”
Thomas v. W. Nat'l Ins. Grp., 543 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 15× “Minn.Stat. § 65B.55, subd. 2 (1994). 1 Thomas’s insurance policy contained such a lapse provision.”
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. v. Acute Care Chiropractic Clinic P.A., 88 F. Supp. 3d 985 (D. Minnesota 2015).
· cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 65B.55, subd. 1. A. The Parties Plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, LM Insurance Corporation, LM General Insurance Corporation, The First Liberty Insurance Corporation, Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana, and Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois…”
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.