Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation, 258 N.W.2d 891.

108 citing documents.

Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d at 61; - 95 (Minn. 1977).
Andrew Cusick, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Here , the settlement agreement refers to a Naig settlement, which is “an agre ement between the injured em ployee and the third-party tortfeasor that settles only those damages that are not recoverable under workers’ compensation law.” Drake v. Reile’s Transfer & Delivery, Inc., n.2 (Minn. App. 2000) (citing Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation , ).
Fish v. Ramler Trucking, Inc. 923 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Fish v. Ramler Trucking, Inc. 923 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
" 'A reverse- Naig [ v. Bloomington Sanitation , ] settlement occurs when the tortfeasor settles potential subrogation claims for workers' compensation benefits with the employer and the employer's workers' compensation insurer.'
Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission 899 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Johnson v. Princeton Public Utilities Commission 899 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
"A reverse-Naig [v. Bloomington Sanitation, ] settlement occurs when the tortfeasor settles potential subrogation claims for workers' compensation *863 benefits with the employer and the employer’s workers’ compensation insurer.” Sayre v. McGough Constr.
Adams v. DSR Sales, Inc. 727 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 2007
Adams v. DSR Sales, Inc. 727 N.W.2d 139 Minn. 2007
An employee may, after notice to the employer, settle claims for damages not subject to the employer’s subrogation right, in which case he “waives his statutory right to one-third of the employer’s net recovery from the third-party.”
Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Bjelland 710 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2006
Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Bjelland 710 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2006
Bunce v. A.P.I., Inc. 696 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Bunce v. A.P.I., Inc. 696 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
seven states that: “It is understood and agreed that the purpose, intent, and legal effect of this document is to bar forever any recovery, contribution, indemnity, or subrogation against releasees by any other party as a result of the accident except and other than such elements as are cognizable under the workers compensation statute and in accordance with NAIG [Naig] v. Bloomington Sanitation
State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mead 691 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mead 691 N.W.2d 495 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ettinger Transfer & Leasing Co. v. Schaper Mfg., Inc., (-95 (Minn. 1977)).
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester 642 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2002
Martin Ex Rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester 642 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2002
See, Lang v. William Bros. Boiler & Mfg.
Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. 634 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2001
Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. 634 N.W.2d 401 Minn. 2001
Application of the distribution formula may be avoided in two situations: First, where the employee, after notice to the employer, settles with the defendant tortfeasor for items of damage not subject to the employer’s subro-gation right, the "employee waives his statutory right to one-third of the employer's net recovery from the third-party.”
Drake v. Reile's Transfer & Delivery, Inc. 613 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Drake v. Reile's Transfer & Delivery, Inc. 613 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Schlichte v. Kielan 599 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sayre v. McGOUGH CONST. CO., INC. 580 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sayre v. McGOUGH CONST. CO., INC. 580 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-94 (Minn.1977) (holding that injured employee has right to settle with third-party tortfeasor claims not covered by Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act).
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 574 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1998
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 574 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1998
Washington v. Milbank Insurance Co. 562 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1997
Washington v. Milbank Insurance Co. 562 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1997
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 560 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Minnesota Brewing Co. v. Egan & Sons Co. 560 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
-95 (Minn.1977) (holding that employer retains its subrogation interest when employee settles with third-party tort-feasor in personal injury action).
Western National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Casper 549 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 1996
Western National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Casper 549 N.W.2d 914 Minn. 1996
Jackson v. Zurich American Insurance Co. 542 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1996
Jackson v. Zurich American Insurance Co. 542 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 1996
Although plaintiffs’ counsel was advised in the spring of 1993 that Zurich had engaged a Minnesota law firm to represent it with respect to its subrogation interest, in January 1994 plaintiffs’ counsel wrote directly to Zurich’s office in Schaumburg, Illinois, to advise Zurich of pending settlement negotiations ⅜ * ⅝
Jackson v. Zurich American Insurance Co. 530 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Jackson v. Zurich American Insurance Co. 530 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Opal Corp. v. American Family Insurance Group 518 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Opal Corp. v. American Family Insurance Group 518 N.W.2d 642 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kliniski v. Southdale Manor, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1994
Kliniski v. Southdale Manor, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 7 Minn. 1994
we said that an employee’s settlement proceeds from a third party tortfeasor are not subject to the statutory *10 allocation “[s]o long as the employee demonstrates that the settlement concerns only damages not recoverable under worker’s [sic] compensation, or allocates the settlement into recoverabl
Drake v. Ryan 514 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1994
Drake v. Ryan 514 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1994
-94 (Minn.1977), we allowed an employee to settle a tort claim for damages not recoverable under workers’ compensation without affecting the employer’s subrogation claim against the tortfeasor for compensation benefits paid.
State, Department of Human Services v. Bengston 506 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State, Department of Human Services v. Bengston 506 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 505 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1993
Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 505 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1993
the employee prior to trial settled with the defendant tortfeasor for only those items of damages not subject to the employer’s subrogation rights.
Drake v. Ryan 498 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Drake v. Ryan 498 N.W.2d 29 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 493 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc. 493 N.W.2d 128 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(employee may settle tort claims but settlement does not affect employer’s sub-rogation rights).
M.W. Ettinger Transfer & Leasing Co. v. Schaper Manufacturing, Inc. 494 N.W.2d 29 Minn. 1992