| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-2080Minnesota Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. Natural Environments Corporation, Appellant, Michael Sullivan, et al., Defendants, and Natural Environments Corporation, Third Party Plaintiff, vs. Wenzel Engineering, Inc., Third Party Defendant. MINGE, Judge Appellant contractor challenges the district court's denial of its motion for summary judgment. The litigation had been initiated by homeowners for damages caused by a landslide. Respondent insured homeowners' automobiles that were destroyed by a second landslide. Appellant argues that because the cause of action does not include a claim for damages to automobiles, respondent's subrogation claim for vehicle damage should have been dismissed and that, even if such damage was included, because the district court no longer had personal jurisdiction over the homeowners or subject matter jurisdiction over their claims, it could not substitute respondent insurer into this case in their stead. Because the homeowners' claims were sufficiently broad to include the second landslide and the automobile damage, because the record on appeal does not preclude recovery for such damage, and because the district court has retained jurisdiction over the parties and the action; we affirm its denial of summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings. = = = = A06-2097 New Division Development Company, LLC, Appellant, vs. Lansing Family Hardware, et al., Respondents, David Lansing, Respondent HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant New Division Development Company (NDDC) challenges the district court's judgment in favor of respondents Lansing Family Hardware, DHJJ, Inc., and David Lansing. Appellant initially filed an unlawful-detainer action, alleging that respondents breached a commercial lease. Appellant alleged that respondents failed to pay the required amount of rent, underpaid rent, and failed to acquire insurance coverage as specified in the lease. After a bench trial, the district court found that the commercial lease presented by respondents was controlling and orally modified the lease to cap rent at ,250 per month. The district court also found that respondents had satisfied their obligation to acquire insurance as specified in the lease. The district court agreed with appellant that respondents had failed to make payments of rent but concluded this was a non-material breach. Respondents were allowed to redeem the lease, which they did. We affirm. = = = = A06-2137 Brian Lindsay, Respondent, v. St. Olaf College, et al., Appellants, Labconco Corporation, et al., Defendants. KLAPHAKE, Judge This appeal arises out of tort claims asserted against appellants St. Olaf College (St. Olaf) and chemistry professor Patrick Riley by respondent Mark Lindsay, who was severely injured while participating in St. Olaf's summer research program. Lindsay was performing a multiple-step procedure to clean, or "quench," a chemistry flask when the flask exploded, spraying chemical debris toward Lindsay and igniting his clothes. Lindsay asserted claims against St. Olaf, Riley, and several other defendants, who all moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, except for St. Olaf and Riley. Lindsay's appeal of those judgments is addressed in a separate appeal. See Lindsay v. Labconco Corp., No. A07-2461 (Minn. App. Jan. 29, 2008). St. Olaf and Riley also moved for summary judgment, arguing that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Lindsay was an employee at the time of the incident and thus had his exclusive remedy in the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act, Minn. Stat. 176 (2006). The district court denied the motion, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact on whether Lindsay met the statutory definition of an employee at the time of his injuries. We affirm. = = = = A06-2172 Amina, Inc., d/b/a 4-You Foods, Relator, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent HUSPENI, Judge On writ of certiorari from revocation of its business licenses by respondent City of Minneapolis, relator Amina, Inc. argues that the decision must either be remanded for further proceedings or reversed by this court because it was based on unlawful procedure, on illegal grounds or other error of law, and was unsupported by substantial evidence. Because respondent's decision to revoke relator's licenses followed appropriate procedure, was supported by substantial evidence, and not based on illegal grounds or other error or law, we affirm. = = = = A06-2408 Norwest Bank Minnesota North, N. A., n/k/a Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., Respondent, vs. Reed Beckler, Appellant KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Reed Beckler challenges a money judgment entered against him in Scott County, pursuant to a Hennepin County determination that the amount respondent bank owed appellant as corporate trustee from a bequest was to be offset against the amount that appellant owed the trust on a promissory note. Appellant argues that (1) his due process rights were violated because there was no determination that respondent was entitled to enforce the lost note; and (2) the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on this matter and the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel precluded the district court's action. We affirm. = = = = A06-2409 Jim Kollross, Appellant, vs. Park Avenue of Wayzata, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that the district court erred by declining to permit him to reopen his case-in-chief for additional testimony after resting. We affirm. = = = = A06-2444 Cyril Miller, Appellant, vs. Le Sueur County, et al., Respondents, and Kocina Rutt Properties, Inc., Intervenor, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge The district court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant's challenge to respondent county's approval of a plat and grant of a conditional use permit and that appellant's only remedy was by writ of certiorari to this court. On appeal, appellant argues that the district court erred because he is not challenging a quasi-judicial action. We affirm. = = = = A06-2447 James Erickson, Appellant, vs. Adolfson and Peterson, Inc., Respondent, Wenzel Plumbing and Heating, Inc., Respondent, General Sheet Metal, LLC, Respondent, AAF McQuay, Inc. d/b/a McQuay International, Respondent, and General Sheet Metal, LLC, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, vs. K.W. Insul, Inc., d/b/a K.W. Insulation, third party defendant, Respondent. WORKE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment on his claims arising from an injury he sustained after falling through an opening in an air-handling unit (AHU). Appellant argues that the district court erred by ruling that (1) his claim against subcontractors was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for actions involving improvements to real property and his claim against one subcontractor was also barred by the workers'-compensation law; (2) the general contractor had no duty of care because it did not retain the right to control or supervise the work of its subcontractor, appellant's employer; and (3) the AHU manufacturer had no duty to warn of an open and obvious duct opening. We affirm. = = = = A06-2461 Brian Lindsay, Appellant, vs. St. Olaf College, et al., Defendants, Labconco Corporation, Respondents. KLAPHAKE, Judge On July 11, 2002, appellant Brian Lindsay, an accomplished undergraduate student majoring in chemistry at St. Olaf College (St. Olaf), was severely burned while participating in a summer research program that required him to work in a laboratory under the direction of Patrick Riley, a chemistry professor. While he was attempting to quench a 2-liter, 3-neck flask that contained an unknown chemical compound, the flask exploded, and chemical debris sprayed out toward Lindsay, igniting his clothes. At the time of the explosion, the flask was located under a fume hood manufactured by respondent Labconco Corporation (Labconco) and distributed by respondent Wright Line, LLC (Wright Line). Respondent Himec, Inc. (Himec), a mechanical engineering company that specializes in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, allegedly assisted in the installation and ventilation of the fume hood. Respondent EOG Environmental, Inc. (EOG) contracted with St. Olaf to provide annual removal of hazardous waste from the St. Olaf campus. Lindsay initiated a negligence and product liability action against St. Olaf, Riley, Labconco, Wright Line, Himec, and EOG. All defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the motions as to St. Olaf and Professor Riley, and that decision is the subject of a separate appeal before this court in Lindsay v. St. Olaf College, No. A06-2137 (Minn. App. Jan. 29, 2008). The district court granted summary judgment to the remaining four defendants, concluding that appellant failed to establish genuine issues of material fact for trial and respondents were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to respondents, we affirm. = = = = A07-0339 In re the Marriage of: Michael A. Spencer, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Kathleen J. Larson, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to eliminate or reduce his spousal maintenance obligation to respondent, arguing that the district court improperly (a) refused to consider respondent's improved economic condition resulting from her cohabitation arrangement; (b) refused to find respondent's 1997 living expenses, thereby precluding a comparison with her current living expenses; (c) disregarded the opinion of a financial consultant that respondent's claimed present financial situation was not credible; and (d) declined to sanction respondent for failing to comply with discovery requests. Because the district court did not consider whether respondent derived an economic benefit from her cohabitation, we reverse and remand the maintenance issue. We affirm, however, the district court's refusal to reconstruct respondent's 1997 living expenses and its denial of sanctions, and note that the consultant's opinion can be considered on remand. = = = = A07-0674 Tony C. Smith, Relator, vs. Volt Management Corp., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Relator challenges the dismissal as untimely of his appeal from a determination that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Relator argues that unforeseen circumstances prevented him from filing an appeal within the statutory time limit. We affirm. = = = = A07-0694 In re: Appeal from an Order Establishing Town Road dated April 5, 2004, and Award of Damages made July 19, 2004, by Goodland Township Catherine Carr, Appellant. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Catherine Carr challenges the district court's summary judgment in favor of respondent Goodland Township, arguing that the court erred by concluding that there was a sufficient public purpose for the town road and that the town board of supervisors did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Because we are constrained by the deferential standard for review of a municipal body's legislative actions and because we conclude that respondent posited at least a minimal public purpose that was not clearly contrary to the public's best interests, we affirm. = = = = A07-1162 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: F. M. P. (f/k/a R., nee J.), Parent. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant F.M.P. challenges the termination of her parental rights to J.E.R., N.D.R., and S.E.R., arguing that (1) the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that a statutory basis exists for the termination and the proceedings were fundamentally unfair; and (2) there is not clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the children's best interests. We affirm. = = = = A07-1413 In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Craig Allen Bolte. DIETZEN, Judge Appellant challenges the district court judgment indeterminately committing him as a sexually dangerous person, arguing that the district court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous. Because the district court properly applied the law and its findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By visiting this page or clicking the "submit" button above, you agree that you have read and accept this "disclaimer". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright ©
Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights
Reserved. Minnesota Law Firm representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims. Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance. |
