Arbitration of Wisniewski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1989, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Behrendt v. Vergin (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- Jensen v. ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The main issue in this case is identical to the principal issue decided today in Lucas v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 403 N.W.2d 646 (Minn. 1987), to-wit: whether provisions of Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1986) allowing recovery of prejudgment interest are applicable to awards made following arbitration. Following Lucas, we hold that section 549.09 does not permit recovery of preaward interest on arbitration awards.
While riding as a passenger in an automobile operated by her husband, appellant Judith Wisniewski was injured when the car came into collision with another. She and her husband brought an uninsured motorist arbitration proceeding against respondent State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (State Farm) pursuant to a clause contained in the insurance contract between herself and respondent. Ultimately, the arbitration panel made an award of $32,000. At the arbitration, although appellant requested prejudgment interest on the award, both parties apparently agreed that the issue would be “deferred to the district court.”
After the arbitrators made the award, appellants moved to modify the award pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 572.20 (1986). At a hearing on the motion, the trial court sustained State Farm’s contention that pre-award interest was not recoverable under section 549.09. 1 For the reasons set forth in Lucas, we affirm. 2
. Wisniewski appealed the trial court’s order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. That court certified the appeal to this court for accelerated review, and we accepted the transfer. See Minn.Stat. § 480.101 (1986).
. The jurisdictional issue raised by this case regarding the district court’s ability to modify an arbitration award to include preaward interest under Minn.Stat. § 572.20 (1986) is moot given our holding that Minn.Stat. § 549.09 (1986) does not apply to arbitration award.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.