862 N.W.2d 62
Minn.2015Background
- The Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association (MJUA) is an involuntary association statutorily created to provide insurance to entities unable to obtain coverage through ordinary methods; membership is mandatory for licensed property/casualty insurers.
- MJUA is financed primarily by premiums and member assessments; the State has no statutory obligation to fund MJUA or assume its debts.
- The Star Tribune requested MJUA data (summary and later policyholder names/addresses and data submitted to Dept. of Commerce). MJUA sought an advisory opinion from the Commissioner of Administration on whether it is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA); the Commissioner declined to issue an opinion.
- MJUA sued for a declaratory judgment that it is not a “government entity” under the MGDPA; the Star Tribune counterclaimed seeking compliance and damages. The district court held MJUA was a state agency subject to the MGDPA; the court of appeals reversed.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide whether MJUA qualifies as a “state agency” under the MGDPA and affirmed the court of appeals: MJUA is not a state agency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MJUA is a "state agency" under the MGDPA | Star Tribune: MJUA is a state-level entity created by statute that performs public functions and is subject to substantial state control, so it qualifies as a state agency. | MJUA: It is an involuntary association of private insurers (not a state office/agency), funded by members, with no state fiscal liability—thus not a state agency. | MJUA is not a state agency; the statutory definition is unambiguous and MJUA is an association of private insurers. |
| Whether agency advisory opinions require deference | Star Tribune: Commissioner opinions that MJUA is subject to MGDPA should be given deference under Minn. Stat. § 13.072. | MJUA: The statute is clear so advisory opinions are not entitled to deference. | No deference to advisory opinions where the statute is unambiguous; court found the statute unambiguous and did not rely on the Commissioner's prior opinions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne, 578 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. 1998) (interpreting governmental status of a municipal power agency in relation to data and open meeting laws)
- Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Bd. of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. 2004) (holding the University Board of Regents is a state agency under the MGDPA)
- State ex rel. Univ. of Minn. v. Chase, 220 N.W. 951 (Minn. 1928) (construing statutory language about agencies and institutions under governmental control)
- Navarre v. S. Wash. Cnty. Schs., 652 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. 2002) (noting de novo review for statutory questions about government-entity status)
- Schwanke v. Minn. Dep’t of Admin., 851 N.W.2d 591 (Minn. 2014) (explaining that advisory opinions are not controlling when statutes are unambiguous)