Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Buck v. Schneider, 413 N.W.2d 569.

34 citing documents.

Steven Duane Auers, personally, and as trustee for the next of kin of Karen Auers v. Progressive Direct … 878 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Steven Duane Auers, personally, and as trustee for the next of kin of Karen Auers v. Progressive Direct … 878 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minn. Stat. § 548.251, relating to collateral sources, operates to prevent double recoveries while simultaneously protecting injured parties from undercompensation by ensuring that the total amount of collateral sources deducted from the award excludes “amounts plaintiff[s] must ultimately pay over to a subrogee.”
Jacquelyn K. Schneewind v. Austin Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jacquelyn K. Schneewind v. Austin Mutual Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
13, 1991); (describing written settlement agreement in which employer/insurer assigned to plaintiff “any claim they might have to a subrogation interest”).
Russell v. Haji-Ali 826 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Russell v. Haji-Ali 826 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Imlay, d at 331 ; (recognizing that the collateral-source statute “has the apparent purpose of preventing windfalls by plaintiffs at the expense of the defendants”).
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Graff v. ROBERT M. SWENDRA AGENCY, INC. 776 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-52 (Minn.App.2005) (finding that subrogation rights were asserted in a timely fashion when the plaintiff raised the subrogation rights at the collateral-source hearing); (finding that the plaintiff asserted subrogation rights “by stating, in response to the court’s order requiring the parties to submit evidence of collateral sources, and in responses to discovery requests, that he had been assigned those rights”).
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 752 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 752 N.W.2d 109 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
The purpose of the collateral-source statute is to prevent “windfalls by plaintiffs at the expense of defendants.”
Tezak v. Bachke 698 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Tezak v. Bachke 698 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-71 (Minn.App.1987) (holding that injured employee who was assigned employer/insurer subrogation rights to workers' compensation payments had asserted the subrogation right within the meaning of subdivision 2(1) in suit against third party responsible for his injuries).
Kahnke v. Green 695 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Kahnke v. Green 695 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
we concluded that Minn.Stat.
Katzner v. Kelleher Construction 535 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Katzner v. Kelleher Construction 535 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Dean v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 535 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1995
Dean v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 535 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 1995
te is to prevent double recoveries, no deduction is allowed where subrogation rights are asserted “to ensure that the amount of collateral sources deducted from the award is the amount to which the plaintiff is actually entitled, and does not include amounts plaintiff must ultimately pay over to a subrogee.” ().
Rogers v. Ponti-Peterson Post 1720 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America, Inc. 495 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Rogers v. Ponti-Peterson Post 1720 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America, Inc. 495 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Austin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 486 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Austin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 486 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kohn v. La Manufacture Francaise Des Pneumatiques Michelin 476 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Kohn v. La Manufacture Francaise Des Pneumatiques Michelin 476 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Kersting v. Royal-Milbank Insurance 456 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Kersting v. Royal-Milbank Insurance 456 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 453 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1990
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 453 N.W.2d 326 Minn. 1990
-72 (Minn.App.1987) (assertion of subrogation right to workers’ compensation benefits prevents collateral source deduction).
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 444 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal 444 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. 438 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Murphy v. Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. 438 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1988
Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. 420 N.W.2d 608 Minn. 1988

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by