Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 65B.61 (2026)

Benefits Primary; Subtractions; Coordination

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Subdivision 1.Generally; exception for workers' compensation benefits.

Basic economic loss benefits shall be primary with respect to benefits, except for those paid or payable under a workers' compensation law, which any person receives or is entitled to receive from any other source as a result of injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. Where workers' compensation benefits paid or payable are primary, the reparation obligor shall make an appropriate rebate or reduction in the premiums of the plan of reparation security. The amount of the rebate or rate reduction shall be not less than the amount of the projected reduction in benefits and claims for which the reparation obligor will be liable on that class of risks. The projected reduction or rebate in benefits and claims shall be based upon sound actuarial principles.

Subd. 2.Disability income loss benefits; coordination with workers' compensation benefits.

If benefits are paid or payable under a workers' compensation law because of the injury, no disability income loss benefits are payable unless the weekly workers' compensation disability benefits are less than the weekly disability benefit as set out in section 65B.44, subdivision 3, in which case the reparation obligor shall pay to the injured person the amount that the weekly disability and income loss benefits payable under section 65B.44, subdivision 3, exceeds the weekly workers' compensation disability benefits.

Subd. 2a.Survivors' economic loss benefits; coordination with workers' compensation death benefits.

If benefits are paid or payable under a workers' compensation law because of death, no survivors' economic loss benefits are payable unless the weekly workers' compensation dependency allowance is less than the weekly survivors' economic loss benefit rate as set out in section 65B.44, subdivision 6, in which case the reparation obligor shall pay to the surviving dependents the amount that the weekly survivors' economic loss benefits payable under section 65B.44, subdivision 6, exceed the weekly workers' compensation dependency allowances.

Subd. 2b.

[Repealed, 1984 c 420 s 2]

Subd. 3.General right to coordinate benefits.

Any legal entity, other than a reparation obligor obligated to pay benefits under a plan of reparation security or an insurer or employer obligated to pay benefits under a workers' compensation law, may coordinate any benefits it is obligated to pay for loss incurred as a result of injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle with basic economic loss benefits. No entity may coordinate benefits pursuant to this subdivision, unless it provides an appropriately reduced premium rate. The amount of this rate reduction shall be not less than the amount of the projected reduction in benefits and claims for which the entity will be liable on that class of risks, less the additional reasonable expenses incurred to administer the plan coordinating benefits. The projected reduction in benefits and claims shall be based upon sound actuarial principles.

Subd. 4.

[Repealed, 1979 c 57 s 2]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases, 1977–2019 · leading case: Record v. Metro. Transit Comm'n, 284 N.W.2d 542 (Minn. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Record v. Metro. Transit Comm'n, 284 N.W.2d 542 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 15× “3, and § 65B.61, subds. 1 and 2. Section 65B.44, subd.”

Stout v. AMCO Ins. Co., 645 N.W.2d 108 (Minn. 2002). · cites it 6× “” Minn.Stat. § 65B.61, subd. 1 (2000). To preserve no-fault insurers’ status as the primary source of benefits for those injured in automobile accidents, the Act generally prohibits no-fault insurers from coordinating basic economic loss benefits with benefits provided by any…”

Wallace v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 302 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 9× “First, Tri-State ignores the language of Minn. Stat. § 65B.61, subd. 1 (1978), which states: Basic economic loss benefits shall be primary with respect to benefits, except for those paid or payable under a workers’ compensation law, which any person receives or is entitled to…”

Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 931 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. 2019). · cites it 5× “Minn. Stat. § 65B.61, subd. 1 (2018) (emphasis added).”

Prax v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 322 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 10× “At the time, Minn.Stat. § 65B.61, subd. 2 provided that “[bjenefits paid or payable under a worker’s compensation law because of the injury or death shall be subtracted in computing basic economic loss benefits * * In Record we rejected the Metropolitan Transit Commission’s…”

Do v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 779 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 3× “2, 3 (governing basic economic loss benefits and residual liability insurance, respectively).”

Hoben v. City of Minneapolis, 324 N.W.2d 161 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 5× “A more difficult question is raised by the adoption of an amendment to Minn. Stat. § 65B.61, subd. 2, effective April 12, 1980.”

Klinefelter v. Crum & Forster Ins. Co., 675 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “” Minn.Stat. § 65B.61, subd. 1 (2002). Crum and Forster cites this statute for the proposition that Klinefelter is collaterally estopped from seeking no-fault benefits because he litigated essentially the same issues in the workers’ compensation system and was denied benefits.”

Freeman v. Armour Food Co., 380 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 6× “It was Farmers’ contention that Armour should have continued to pay temporary total compensation benefits after the auto accident and, because workers’ compensation benefits are primary under Minn.Stat. § 65B.61 (1984), 1 that Farmers had a reimbursement claim against Armour.”

Roepke v. W. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 302 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 65B.61 (1978). We conclude that plaintiffs should be allowed to stack the insurance coverages on all six vehicles insured under the corporate PIP plan.”

Perez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 344 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. 1984). · cites it 2× “* * * It is likely that the Legislature chose the language it used on the basis of a supposition of employer obedience to the law, not disobedience of it.”

Hoeschen v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 359 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “The Minnesota Supreme Court held Minn.Stat. § 65B.61, subd. 1 (1978) prevents no-fault insurers from “deferring” payment of benefits because other insurance coverage exists.”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 65B.61(3) — 2 cases

Jader v. Principal Mut. Life Ins., 702 F. Supp. 224 (D. Minnesota 1989).

Robert D. Jader v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., Formerly Known as Bankers Life, 975 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1992).

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.