Ryberg v. Landsiedel, 956 N.W.2d 749

In November 2016, Heather Ryberg was killed in a vehicle collision with Darren Landsiedel; Jason Ryberg sued Landsiedel for wrongful death in March 2018.
Landsiedel had $25,000 liability limits through Allstate; Ryberg had substantial underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage with Nodak.
Allstate offered its $25,000 policy limits; Nodak advanced $25,000 to preserve subrogation rights under N.D.C.C. § 26.1-40-15.5.
In January 2020, Ryberg and Nodak agreed to settle Ryberg’s UIM claim for $100,000 (in addition to the $25,000 already advanced); Landsiedel’s counsel filed a notice of settlement and trial was taken off calendar.
No written settlement between Ryberg and Landsiedel was filed; on Feb 27, 2020 Nodak moved to intervene but the district court denied intervention as untimely.
In June 2020 Landsiedel moved to enforce a settlement agreement; the district court granted the motion and dismissed the wrongful-death action with prejudice. Ryberg and Nodak appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a binding settlement existed between Ryberg and Landsiedel that the court could enforce	Ryberg: no signed agreement; no evidence of terms; court denied requested hearing; enforcement improper without clear, convincing evidence	Landsiedel: counsel filed notice of settlement; former counsel and Nodak’s rep confirmed a full settlement; no objection filed earlier	Court: Reversed enforcement — no evidence of settlement terms, no findings or hearing, so settlement not enforceable
Whether Nodak could intervene to protect subrogation/reimbursement rights	Nodak: preserved rights under statute; denial of intervention extinguished statutory subrogation and was clearly erroneous	Landsiedel: intervention unnecessary; Nodak could have sued separately or preserved rights after trial; denial not prejudicial	Court: Vacated denial of intervention without prejudice (order set aside because underlying dismissal reversed)

DeCoteau v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 603 N.W.2d 906 (explains when UIM coverage is triggered and insurer's maximum liability)
Hasper v. Ctr. Mut. Ins. Co., 723 N.W.2d 409 (UIM insurer may substitute payment within 30 days to preserve subrogation)
Score v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 538 N.W.2d 206 (discusses excess coverage when tortfeasor is underinsured)
Gillespie v. Nat’l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co., 885 N.W.2d 771 (UIM coverage is first-party and governed by statute)
Kuperus v. Willson, 709 N.W.2d 726 (settlement treated as contract; courts favor enforcement if terms are clear)
Tarver v. Tarver, 931 N.W.2d 187 (oral contracts enforceable only when essential terms are definite)
Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Grand Forks Bean Co., Inc., 900 N.W.2d 255 (standards of review for intervention issues)