News

Arthur Chapman attorney Beth Jenson Prouty obtained affirmance at the Eighth Circuit for her insurer client in the case Restaurant Recycling v. EMC. The opinion reaffirms Minnesota’s plain-meaning application of the Absolute Pollution Exclusion. The opinion applies the “in whole or part” language of the pollution exclusion and also defines the plain-meaning of the word “dispersal.”

On April 24, 2019, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying employers and insurers’ ability to utilize defenses under the Treatment Parameters. In Johnson, William v. Darchuks Fabrication, Inc., File No. A18-1131 (April 24, 2019), the Minnesota Supreme Court, in a case of first impression, ruled that employers and insurers can apply the Treatment Parameters even when contesting a diagnosis, as long as they do not deny all obligations to pay compensation for the underlying injury.

With 50 lawyers, the firm Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala tied for #18 on Minnesota Lawyer’s recently released list of Minnesota’s Largest Law Firms, 2018. For comparison, the firm moved up from its 2016 ranking when we had 46 lawyers.

Please join us in congratulating Steve Warner on his induction as a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). Steve joins his partners Sally Ferguson, Colby Lund, Paul Rocheford, Michael Ryan, and Eugene Shermoen in this well respected organization.

By Jeffrey M. Markowitz "Justice delayed is justice denied." That legal maxim recognizes that securing justice eventually is not enough. The injury of delay can deny, or at least diminish, later-secured justice. Often the battle cry of the plaintiff seeking prompt redress, so too may the maxim be the battle cry of the defendant seeking prompt dismissal of a claim destined for a defense judgment. The longer it takes a defendant to march toward justice, the more time, burden, and expense even ordinary litigation will cause. And, particularly if the claim should never have made it past the pleadings stage, every dollar and hour spent in discovery diminishes eventually secured justice.

Minnesota Court of Appeals Holds Joint and Several Liability Statute Does Not Apply to Fault of Employer

Whether you hit a home run in district court, or lost hard, every litigator will repeatedly face the question of whether and how to appeal that shutout, or how to defend that big win. Attorney Jeffrey Markowitz, a former MN Court of Appeals clerk, offers five tips to navigate your next appeal.

In a firm where nearly half of the attorneys are women, nine are shareholders. In this article, each took a moment to reflect on why she chooses to practice at Arthur Chapman, how the firm is fulfilling its commitment to diversity and inclusion, and how the firm supports her in achieving work/life balance.

Minnesota Statute § 60A.41(a) prohibits an insurance company from “proceed[ing] against its insured in a subrogation action where the loss was caused by the nonintentional act of the insured.” (Emphasis added.)

Robert W. Kettering, Jr., 69, died on April 22, 2018. Bob was a consummate lawyer, endearing father, and caring husband. Bob was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer’s disease several years ago, which forced him to leave the law practice that he dearly loved in 2011.

Small-town values and big-city litigation have helped fashion the philosophy of TCCA president Shayne Hamann.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has determined that employers and insurers are not responsible for disability benefits resulting from undertaking medical treatment that is not causally related to a work injury.

In Hohlt v. University of Minnesota, filed on June 28, 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court has limited the scope of its prior decision in Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy, 840 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 2013). The Hohlt decision will immediately impact how cases are analyzed with regard to the “arising out of” and “in the course of” compensability determinations, and may very well impact cases that are currently in litigation.

In a decision issued by the Minnesota Supreme Court on May 3, 2017, the Court significantly raised the level of importance of the contents of a Rehabilitation Plan prepared as part of a workers’ compensation matter. In Gilbertson v. Williams Dingmann, LLC, File No. A16-0895 (May 3, 2017), the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that an employer and insurer cannot discontinue temporary total disability (“TTD”) benefits when the employee rejected a job offer from the date-of-injury employer because the Rehabilitation Plan identified the vocational goal as return to work to a “different employer.”

On April 5, 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued Wilbur v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., applying "proceeds awarded" for purposes of Minnesota's first-party bad faith statute to unambiguously mean the judgment amount entered by the district court on the claim for benefits, an amount which is capped by the insurance policy’s limit.

Does Minn. Stat. § 227.271 Create a Private Right of Action for Violations of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and their Minnesota Analogues? by Jeffrey J. Woltjen and James F. Mewborn Minnesota Chapter 221 regulates both interstate and intrastate motor carriers operating in Minnesota. The statutes largely adopt the federal motor carrier legislation, known as the Federal Motor Safety Carrier Regulations (“FMCSRs”), codified as 49 C.F.R. §§ 300.01 et seq., which set forth the mandatory safety regulations that motor carriers must follow in the course of transporting persons or property for business purposes.

328 Barry Ave., LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC, 871 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. Nov. 25, 2015) Contractors everywhere experienced a slight setback when the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its opinion on November 25, 2015, in 328 Barry Ave., LLC v. Nolan Properties Group, LLC. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the general contractor that the statute of limitations on claims for defective construction can begin to run before substantial completion of the construction, under Minn. Stat. § 541.051; however, the court refused to expand “discovery of the injury” to include a leak, previously remedied, such that the two year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1 would bar Plaintiff’s claims.