Richard J. Hartfiel v. Raymond Wilburn Allison, T. J. Potter Trucking, Inc., Westfield Insurance Company, intervenor
A15-1149
| Minn. Ct. App. | Jan 25, 2016Background
- Hartfiel (owner-operator) was attacked by Potter Trucking employee Allison on company premises on June 4, 2010; Allison was later convicted of third-degree assault. Hartfiel incurred significant injuries and medical expenses.
- Hartfiel sued Potter Trucking for negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision; he settled his direct claims against Allison separately.
- In late 2011 the parties exchanged draft Miller-Shugart settlement agreements; drafts required written notice to insurer Westfield of the parties’ intent to enter the agreement.
- Potter Trucking made a telephone inquiry to Westfield on Nov. 16, 2011; Hartfiel later requested written proof of notice before signing; Potter Trucking gave written notice in January 2012 and Westfield retained counsel within the notice period, halting the Miller-Shugart process.
- District court denied enforcement of a Miller-Shugart agreement, allowed Westfield to intervene to oppose enforcement, and ultimately granted summary judgment to Potter Trucking on negligent-hiring and negligent-retention claims; on appeal the court affirmed some rulings, reversed others, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of Miller‑Shugart agreement | Hartfiel: his Nov. 21 draft was a definite offer; Potter Trucking accepted orally and by a Dec. 16 letter; Nov. 16 phone notice to Westfield satisfied notice term | Potter Trucking/Westfield: drafts required written notice to Westfield as an essential term; written notice did not occur until Jan. 13; Westfield acted within notice period so condition precedent failed | Court: No enforceable Miller‑Shugart agreement — written notice was an essential term and Westfield’s timely intervention prevented satisfaction of the condition precedent |
| Negligent hiring | Hartfiel: Potter Trucking failed to conduct reasonable background investigation (no criminal-check practice; failed to follow its own procedures) | Potter Trucking: followed its standard hiring practices (application, interview, drug test, release for background, referral); no evidence it knew or should have known of violent propensities when hiring | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Potter Trucking on negligent hiring — no genuine issue that hiring inquiry was unreasonable |
| Negligent retention | Hartfiel: after hiring, Potter Trucking learned of Allison’s violent incidents/threats and failed to act | Potter Trucking: incidents were gossip or non-work-related; did not adequately indicate employer notice requiring action | Court: Reversed summary judgment — genuine factual disputes exist about whether Potter Trucking knew or should have known of Allison’s violent propensities during employment |
| Westfield's intervention | Hartfiel: Westfield had no sufficient interest and was adequately represented by Potter Trucking; intervention improper | Westfield: had a direct interest in insured’s liability and could be impaired by enforcement of Miller‑Shugart; Potter Trucking did not represent Westfield’s position on enforceability | Court: Westfield entitled to intervene as of right (and alternatively permissively); district court did not err in allowing intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Shugart, 316 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1982) (defines Miller‑Shugart settlement procedure)
- Ponticas v. K.M.S. Invs., 331 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. 1983) (sets negligent‑hiring standard and scope of reasonable pre‑employment investigation)
- Curtis v. Altria Group, Inc., 813 N.W.2d 891 (Minn. 2012) (settlement agreements are contracts judged by parties’ intent)
- Nat’l City Bank of Minneapolis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 447 N.W.2d 171 (Minn. 1989) (explains condition precedent concept)
- Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d 197 (Minn. 1986) (four‑part test for intervention as of right)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Wensmann, Inc., 840 N.W.2d 438 (Minn. App. 2013) (claimant/insurer intervention principles in coverage disputes)
- Alton M. Johnson Co. v. M.A.I. Co., 463 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1990) (Miller‑Shugart settlement limits insurer’s scope of challenge to coverage and reasonableness of settlement)