Minn. Stat. § 65B.61

Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · 2019 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Do v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · 2010 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. James Courtney Law Office, P.A. · 2003 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Stout v. AMCO Insurance Co. · 2002 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Freeman v. Armour Food Co. · 1986 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Hoben v. City of Minneapolis · 1982 1 citation

2. A more difficult question is raised by the adoption of an amendment to Minn. Stat. § 65B.61, subd. 2, effective April 12, 1980. The trial court held that the amendment did not apply to an injury which occurred in May 1979, and that respondent was therefore entitled to the additional benefits with which we dealt in Record v. Metropolitan Transit Commission, 284 N.W.2d 542 (Minn.1979). Because the rule we there adopted was nullified by 1980 Minn.Laws, c. 539, and because Minn. Stat. § 65B.54, subd. 1 (1980), applies to future payments for economic losses as they accrue, we hold that the amendment to § 65B.61 applies after April 12, 1980 to respondent’s combined benefits, and reverse.

Prax v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · 1982 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Kleinwachter v. Time Insurance Co. · 1981 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Roepke v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co. · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Wallace v. Tri-State Insurance Co. · 1980 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · 2018 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (A14-132), (A14-224) v. Angela Mary Lennartson, (A14-132), Katie Foss, (A14-224). · 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Klinefelter v. Crum & Forster Insurance Co. · 2004 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Stout v. AMCO Insurance Co. · 2001 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

American Family Insurance Group v. Udermann · 2001 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Arbitration Between Racine v. AMCO Insurance Co. · 2000 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Simpson v. American Family Insurance Co. · 2000 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Arbitration Between Raymond v. Allied Property & Casualty Insurance · 1996 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Great West Casualty Co. v. MSI Insurance Co. · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Hoiland v. Minneapolis Children's Medical Center · 1990 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Colonial Insurance Co. of California v. Minnesota Assigned Risk Plan · 1990 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Engel v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. · 1990 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Gross v. General Casualty Insurance Co. · 1989 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Strand v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. · 1988 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Demning v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance · 1987 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Backhauls, Inc. v. Thake · 1986 2 citations

2. Appellants base a request for equitable reimbursement on the anti-stacking provisions of Minn. Stat. § 65B.61 (1984). Section 65B.61, subds. (1) and (2) provide that the payment of worker’s compensation benefits is primary, and when an employee receives benefits under worker’s compensation and no-fault, no-fault benefits must be reduced by the amount of worker’s compensation benefits paid. Metropolitan Transit Commission v. Bachman’s, 311 N.W.2d 852, 854-55 (1981).

2. Appellants base a request for equitable reimbursement on the anti-stacking provisions of Minn. Stat. § 65B.61 (1984). Section 65B.61, subds. (1) and (2) provide that the payment of worker’s compensation benefits is primary, and when an employee receives benefits under worker’s compensation and no-fault, no-fault benefits must be reduced by the amount of worker’s compensation benefits paid. Metropolitan Transit Commission v. Bachman’s, 311 N.W.2d 852, 854-55 (1981).

Wills v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · 1985 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Hoeschen v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co. · 1984 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Mohs v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Aarvig v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance · 2003 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Jader v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance · 1989 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.