Travelers Insurance Co. v. Springer
289 N.W.2d 131
Minn.
1979
Check Treatment

*1 summary The judgment the in condition of con- defendants’ evidence of the reet favor is reversed. We direct the district Defendants’ evidence did origin. at tainer made, entry judgment court to order of in the was favor of establish when hole not of plaintiff stipulated in the amount the tape, when the it was covered with when damages.9 loose, or whether the edge tape of the came the exterior surface of

tape blended in with with Reversed and remanded directions. the hole making discovery of the container inspection.8 impossible on reasonable OTIS, J., no in the part took considera- or of case. tion decision the failed Thus we hold that defendants case plaintiff’s prima facie to rebut negli- were from

showing they free damage came within the

gence and that the 20(11) (1978). of 49 U.S.C.A.

exceptions the consistent with “sound

This result of carrier lia-

premise” general of the rule peculiarly has bility the The TRAVELERS INSURANCE —“that knowledge the facts and its within COMPANY, Appellant, ‘[a]ll rely which to upon circumstances [it] v. * ** duty. In conse- relieve of [it] [its] SPRINGER, Respondent. A. Genevieve upon the burden quence, the law casts [it] No. 49231. or, explain the loss which cannot of [it] exceptional explaining, bring within the Supreme Court of Minnesota. liability.’ from case in which is relieved [it] Nov. 1979. Vallescura, v. The 293 U.S. Schnell P. R. 79 L.Ed. 373.” Missouri 55 S.Ct. Stahl, supra, 377 U.S. at

Co. v. Elmore &

143, 84 S.Ct. at 1148. replied: plaintiff tape tiffs “The no re- the would counsel has 8. Defendants’ assertion that appar- in with metal on the trailer The court then took the case under blend the buttal.” advisement, plain- ently post-trial of based on the cross-examination and briefs were dis- op- forklift tiffs President Richard Klemer and then said: “We can cussed. Plaintiff’s counsel erator, McColloy, Clayton neither of whom case and submit it as of consider the January closed top looked at the of the container disturbed from the date of [one 5th month tape the inside. There is no indication replied: right.” De- The court "All trial].” anyone the record that ever saw outer in concluding remarks remind- fendants’ counsel’s reject tape. of infer- surface ence that the outer we motion for sum- ed the court mary defendants’ tape surface blended yet judgment De- had been decided. top making with the of the container in discovery metal suppose “I fendants’ counsel then observed: inspection. impossible on reasonable course, my granted, of that if motion was rely upon opinion Defendants also if that be denied end the matter. Also would then I rebutting president, expressed plaintiff’s in a then letter go my proof of forth further would with ” company, that the he wrote to an insurance presumptions of the Plaintiffs damaged prior container had been to arrival in proceeded argue to that the rainfall statis- subsequent in a letter to an insur- Norfolk. But already by defendants were tics introduced company, apparently on additional ance based presumption rebut “sufficient to whatever concerning the time in which information short plaintiff going had for it as to condition deteriorate, plain- water-damaged wool would given to Norfolk when it was trailer president damage then tiff concluded The district court then ended Western.” was in defend- occurred while ants’ container right, proceedings, saying, “All the court custody. will matter advisement.” take the under transcript and briefs some confu- reveal reversing ordering entry judgment part sion on the counsel con- defendants’ plaintiff, case determine that the favor of we cerning posture submitted case when merits, on and that as been tried its After the district court decision. evidence failed matter of law defendants’ wit- recross-examination of sole defendants’ presumption rebut raised ness, defendants’ counsel the witness dismissed plaintiffs evidence. (sic) and said: rests.” Plain- “The defendant *2 Cousineau, McGuire, Shaughnessy & An- Pfister, L. Minneapolis, and Mark derson appellant. for and John E. Rosenmeier Simo- Gordon Falls, nett, respondent. for Little ROGOSHESKE, WAHL, Heard before MAXWELL, JJ., considered and by decided the court en banc. TODD, Justice. Company (Trav-

The Travelers Insurance insurer, elers), ap- compensation workers’ a summary judgment entered peals from court held that Travel- against it. The trial from a right ers’ to seek reimbursement the medi- negligent third-party motorist for expenses paid injured employee to an cal Compensation Workers’ Act was under the insur- abrogated by the no-fault automobile We reverse and remand. ance act. 28, 1975, by a car driven On October Springer Genevieve collided with a vehicle Anderson, who sustained driven Mark injuries. acting Because Anderson was scope employment within the of his at the accident, time of the his paid by in the amount of were his $104 insurer, compensation employer’s workers’ suit Travelers. Travelers commenced $88, against Springer reduced stipulated amount of An- $104 negligence. Springer prevailed on derson’s judgment, this summary her motion for appeal was taken. presented are: two issues

(1) What kind of does Minn.Stat. (1978), for the create compensation re- employer’s seek expenses paid by imbursement for medical employee? it to an (2) abrogated by Whether the no-fault automobile insurance act to the expenses do not exceed the extent no-fault tort threshold? Mu

Although we held in American Cleaners, Liability Ins. v. Reed tual Co. * * * may separate cause of action 503, 122 N.W.2d 178 Minn. separate action (1978),1 in a creat- asserted Minn.Stat. added.) By language, (emphasis subrogation in ed a clearly special established carrier, legislature we did not address its parties carriers to sue third for 7 in rights created the nature *3 compensation paid of to the any both subdivi- amounts Examination of case. Froys See expenses. markedly employee as medical sions, however, dif- reveals their Bros., Inc., 201, land v. Leef 5, 293 Minn. 197 the In subd. language and effect. ferent (1972). entirely This is N.W.2d 656 compensation carrier’s legislature tied the independent any right employee may the for its com- to reimbursement rights receive statutory a ability have. Travelers has employee’s expenses to the pensation respondent, against the fact, cause of action at party. “[a] third In from the to collect super a statute which right of action under actually stated legislature the point one a strictly law and is sedes the common subrogated is to the employer (carrier) “the action, although statutory right of the same employee.” rights of the a of ac facts would have constituted hand, 7, legisla other the on the subd. principles.” common-law prior tion under sepa “a gave compensation the ture Actions C.J.S., (1936). p. § against additional cause of action such rate by though has a stat any paid amounts Even Travelers party to recover third action, utory right may have *. This medical treatment him for protect pro- deems it advisable in order to the inter- § 1. Minn.Stat. court, injury upon applica- employee, an or death for which the vides: Where compensation est of the payable tion, may grant employee depend- caused under cir- is is to the or his legal liability for created a cumstances which damages for the ents the to intervene in the action party part the on of a other than the proceeds prosecution ac- thereof. The of such being employer, party or self- then insured paid in ac- tion or settlement thereof shall be chapter, with this insured in accordance the not party is not with subdivision 6. Such cordance 1, 2, provisions and 4 do of subdivisions any person employee or to other than the liable employer party apply, or than the the other resulting any damages dependents for his provided or self-insured as is not then insured injury the or death. may by by chapter, legal proceedings be taken dependents against employee the the or his (1978), pro- 2. Minn.Stat. party damages, to recover notwithstand- other ing liability employer for medical vides: The of an employer payment by or his the the chapter af- shall not be treatment under this against compensation. pay If to the action by employee in- his was fected the fact that by party brought injured em- the such other is negligence jured through third the fault or .a judgment ployee dependents and a or his may against employee party, a whom the have paid or settlement made with obtained may under this of action which be sued cause party, employer may deduct from the other the separate employer chapter, but the shall have a by compensation payable him the amount the actually against third of action such by employee depend- additional cause the or received any paid by party for him the to recover amounts in with subdivision 6. If ents accordance prosecuted resulting diligently if the is not or under this section action medical treatment protect party. in to the negligence court it advisable order deems This from the of such third application employer, upon the may of the employer interests separate of the cause action may grant employer right to inter- court brought separate be asserted in a employer against action any prosecution in such action for the vene party or in the such third injured employee depend- If or his thereof. ents employee or the em- action commenced ployer agree compensation from the to receive chapter, in the latter case under this but proceedings employer or institute to recover stated, separately the cause of action shall be accept employer the same or separate- shall be awarded thereon the amount compensation, payment on account of such verdict, ly recov- out in the and the amount set rights subrogated employer is to the of the as ered or otherwise reimbursement suit dependents. employer employee This or his of the shall be for benefit medical employer may an or continue an action maintain action employer to the extent already be main- instituted. This action pay required paid for medical be to or will employee the the tained in the name names of the employer injured not and shall treatment dependents or in the name of periodic affect the amount of party against re- such other for the paid. covery damages. dili- If action Js prosecuted by employer gently or the court abrogated by been the no-fault insurance We reverse the decision of the trial court Support position act. for the uphold independent no- statutory right rights against all fault act ended of Travelers to sue for the amount of its the tortfeasor for amounts less than the expenses compensation. Michigan threshold amount exists in the Reversed and remanded. Gensterblum, case of Flower v. 86 Mich. (1978). App. 272 N.W.2d 726 The Min- WAHL, (dissenting). Justice act, however, operates nesota no-fault dif- respectfully I dissent. I would affirm the ferently than those of other states such as any right trial court’s determination that 65B.51, Michigan. Minn.Stat. acquired by employer or workers’ com- (1978), provides part that “In an action pensation insurer subrogation is based on person described in subdivision no shall employee’s against cause of action damages recover for non-economic detri- *4 * * party. third Because the employee pre- (emphasis added.) ment unless *.” cluded the no-fault automobile insurance Thus, the Minnesota no-fault act does not suing act from third-party tortfeasor suits, claims,

preclude extinguish all nor all loss, for basic economic employee has no merely provides generally damages but that right to which Travelers subrogat- could be cannot be recovered unless certain thresh- ed. requirements old are met. by5 right Subdivision its terms creates a Michigan significantly statute is dif- subrogation employer. in the Since sub- ferent than Minnesota’s. Mich.Stat.Ann. rogation applied “will be person wherever a (1978) subd. 2 500.- § § [M.C.L.A. acting voluntarily, but under some com- 3135(2)], provides “Notwithstanding pulsion, pays discharges a debt or obliga- an law, provision other tort tion for which another primarily liable respect operation to the of motor ve- [with * * * equity good and which in conscience except is abolished as to hicles] * * ought discharged latter,” to be by the Thus, Michigan, taking an en- 8, 600, Subrogation p. C.J.S. it is clear tirely Minnesota, approach different than that Travelers would not be entitled to re- liability. has abolished tort Had Minnesota cover from the tortfeasor under subdivision tort liability, logically abolished then we 5, because, act, by virtue of the no-fault would reach the conclusion that no one tortfeasor is not primarily liable for the against could recover the tortfeasor. Min- injured employee’s expenses. this, nesota not do however. did Liability American Mutual Ins. Co. v. provisions Neither did the other Cleaners, 503, Reed 265 Minn. 122 N.W.2d expressly abrogate no-fault act indepen- (1963), rejected argument we statutory right dent granted of action the workers’ insurer had a Further, they carriers. did not even im- indemnity independent of its pliedly abrogate right. Quite this to the subrogation under subdivision. 5. Al- contrary, Minnesota’s system no-fault though upon we were not called in that case grants parties, situations, rights certain to examine the rights nature of the created damages though even they do language subdivision por- of that not meet obligations threshold it, too, tion of the statute indicates that 65B.51, statute. See Minn.Stat. provides subrogation only. 65B.53, (1978). These exceptions merely emphasize the fact that Subdivision 7 addresses itself to the em- Minnesota did not abolish tort liability ployer’s but cause of action to recover medical merely recovery denied the to in- “against tortfeasor jured parties in certain situations. employee whom the may have a cause of allowing the employers to recover under may action which be sued chap- under this would not be inconsistent ter Similarly, the subdivision with the overall effect of the no-fault act. refers to this cause of action as a “separate action, assumes which cause of additional” of action has a cause employee also Moreover, subdivi- the tortfeasor.

against cause of employer’s 7 states

sion “in the separately or asserted

action be or the commenced

action * * *.” chapter employer under against the action reference is to

This latter brought under may be tortfeasor Bros., See, Leef Froysland v.

subdivision (1972).

Inc., 197 N.W.2d 293 Minn. interpret subdi- incongruous to

It would be of action for 7 to establish a cause

vision expenses that could recovery of medical indepen- separately as an asserted either indemnification, inor con-

dent claim for brought of action

junction with a cause only grants which to subdivision

pursuant then subrogation rights, for employer de- ability to recover would employer’s *5 technicality. procedural a mere

pend on hold that Minn.Stat.

I would subrogation in creates a that, carrier and workers’ pre- where the no-fault act

consequently, recover- injured employee from

cludes the tortfeasor,

ing like- compensation carrier is

the workers’ precluded bringing suit.

wise

SHERAN, (dissenting). Justice Chief Wahl. agree

I with Justice DeGIDIO, Appellant,

Anthony petitioner,

v. Minnesota, Respondent.

STATE

No. 49816. Defender, Jones, and Eva- Public C. Paul of Minnesota. Supreme Court Defender, Minne- lynn Welling, Asst. Public Jan. apolis, appellant. Gen., Paul, Atty. St. Spannaus, Warren Johnson, Atty., Vernon County Thomas L. Chief, W. App.Div., David Bergstrom, E.