MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY  
attorney Michael E. Douglas Attorney at Law
  Personal Injury Attorney
  St. Paul Workers Compensation Lawyer work comp attorney
 > About Me
   :: My Commitment
   :: Our Community
   
 > Legal Practice Areas
  twin cities comsumer lawPersonal Injury
   :: Traffic Accidents
   :: Medical Malpractice
   :: Social Security Disability
   :: Premises Liability
   :: Wrongful Death
   :: Dog Bite
   :: Back/Spinal/Neck Injuries
   :: Whiplash
   :: Defective Medical Devices
   :: Defective Drugs
  Minnesota Personal InjuryWorkers Compensation
  St. Paul personal injuryConsumer Law
   :: Debt Collection
   :: Repossessions
   :: Foreclosures
   :: Loan, Credit, Banking
   :: Arbitration Agreements
   :: Deception and Fraud
   :: Auto Fraud / Lemon Law
   :: Warranties
   :: Predatory Lending
   
 > Contact Us
   :: Contact Us
 

Law Offices of Michael E. Douglas
P.O. Box 251551
Woodbury, Minnesota 55125-6551
   

 Saint Paul Lawyer
 
 mdouglas@injurylawtwincities.com

 

UNPUBLISHED CIVIL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS

A07-2222

Tony Eiden Company, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Auto-Owners Insurance Company,
Appellant,

vs.

State Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company,
Respondent.

JOHNSON, Judge
In September 2002, Peter and Laurie Bacig discovered that water was entering the exterior walls of their house, which was built in 1994. They sued the contractor, Tony Eiden Company, which tendered the claim to four insurance companies. Three of those insurance companies participated in the defense of the Bacigs' claim, which was settled. One insurance company, State Auto Insurance Company, refused to defend Tony Eiden Company and refused to pay any part of the settlement.
Tony Eiden Company and the three participating insurers brought this lawsuit to require State Auto to contribute to the defense and indemnification of Tony Eiden Company. After a court trial, the district court entered judgment for State Auto. On appeal, Auto-Owners Insurance Company argues that the district court erred in its conclusions of law by incorrectly applying the governing caselaw. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0142

Carl Green, d/b/a Signature Capital,
assignee for C & L Asset Group Ltd. Fiduciary Trust Company,
Appellant,

vs.

Tom Blonigen,
Respondent,

John Sanner, et al.,
Respondents.

PETERSON, Judge
In this real-estate dispute, pro se appellant argues that the district court erred by (1) dismissing his claims against respondent Tom Blonigen for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and (2) dismissing his claims against respondents John Sanner and Rick Hondl because they were not properly served. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0214

Susan Kaufenberg,
Appellant,

vs.

Schwan's Home Service, Inc.,
Respondent.

SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellant Susan Kaufenberg argues that the district court erred by finding facts and making credibility determinations in granting summary judgment to respondent Schwan's Home Services, Inc. (SHS) on her claim for retaliatory discharge from employment. We reverse and remand; respondent's motion to strike portions of appellant's reply brief is deemed moot.

= = = =

A08-0320

Jason W. Burmeister, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Nancy A. Westerhouse,
Respondent,

Lori Gustafson, et al.,
Respondents.

COLLINS, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents, arguing that material issues of fact exist on each of appellants' claims. We affirm.

= = = =

A08-0413

Pamela K. Hanson,
Appellant,

vs.

Northern J & B Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Respondents.

HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of her motion for a new trial on the grounds that the district court abused its discretion by not redacting portions of the liability-release form that she had signed and by giving negligence and comparative-fault instructions to the jury. By notice of review, respondents argue that the district court erred in finding that res judicata did not bar this claim and that, as a matter of law, respondents' statements did not constitute an express warranty. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or in its jury instructions or err in its denial of respondents' motion for directed verdict, we affirm in part. But because we conclude that the district court erred by denying respondents' summary-judgment motion, we also reverse in part.

= = = =

A08-0469


Jennifer Helen Aubin,
Appellant,

vs.

One 1988 Chevrolet Corvette,
Serial #1G1YY2180J5119191,
License Plate #JAUBIN,
Respondent.


TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Jennifer Helen Aubin challenges the district court order granting summary judgment affirming the forfeiture of her 1988 Chevrolet Corvette. Because material issues of fact exist regarding whether appellant's boyfriend, Adam T. A. Groshong, was a member of her household and whether appellant was an innocent owner of the vehicle subject to forfeiture, we reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

= = = =

A08-0518

Joe Bailey,
Respondent,

vs.

Dale Cox,
Appellant.

JOHNSON, Judge
This appeal is the latest iteration of a contract dispute that first arose nearly 20 years ago. In 1997, Joe Bailey obtained a 5,000 judgment against Dale Cox in a federal district court in Mississippi. Ten years later, Bailey renewed the judgment in the federal district court and then docketed the renewed judgment in the Clay County District Court. Cox moved to vacate the district court's docketing of the renewed federal judgment. The district court denied the motion. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0525

In Re: Purported Financing Statements in the District Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota, Against Willis R. Juhl and Helen E. Juhl

LARKIN, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court's order directing the Minnesota Secretary of State to remove certain purported financing statements so the statements are not reflected in or obtained as a result of any search conducted of the records of the Minnesota Secretary of State. The district court granted the order under the provisions of Minn. Stat. 545.05 (2006). Because Minn. Stat. 545.05 applies only to liens and secured transactions covered by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and because the judgment liens at issue here do not fall within the scope of Article 9, relief is not available under section 545.05. Accordingly, we reverse.

= = = =

A08-0535

Thomas Davison,
Appellant,

vs.

City of Minneapolis,
Respondent.

HUSPENI, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his declaratory-judgment claim, arguing that the district court erred in determining that he was ineligible for continuing health-insurance coverage, under Minn. Stat. 299A.465 (2002), because he did not individually subscribe to city health insurance, but rather was covered through his wife's city policy, at the time that he retired. Because the statute is not ambiguous regarding the employer's obligation for the continued coverage and payment of the employer's contribution for coverage until the officer or firefighter reaches the age of 65 with no conditions or restrictions prohibiting coverage when the employee was listed as a dependent on a spouse's policy through the same employer, we reverse. Because the district court did not reach the issue of the interpretation of Minn. Stat. 299A.465, subd. 1(a), and because material fact questions remain regarding whether appellant's permanent-disability pension was based upon a duty-related injury, we remand that issue for further proceedings.

= = = =

A08-0645

Jacky Larkin,
Respondent,

vs.

Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc.,
Appellant.

COLLINS, Judge
Challenging the district court's denial of its posttrial motion, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1) failing to adopt appellant's proposed jury instructions and (2) excluding a contract and appellant's financial information. Because the district court's jury instructions expressed the applicable law fairly and accurately, and because the exclusion of the contract and the financial information was not an abuse of discretion, we affirm.

= = = =

A08-0649
A08-1346

The Guardianship of the Person of: Tiffany Marie Jakubek, Ward (A08-649),
In re Public Guardianship of: Tiffany Marie Jakubek, Public Ward (A08-1346).

KALITOWSKI, Judge
Appellant-ward Tiffany Marie Jakubek contends that the district court abused its discretion in appointing a public guardian because: (1) her father, respondent Jeffrey Jakubek (Mr. Jakubek), has statutory priority, and (2) the district court did not explicitly find that no family member or other qualified individual was willing to assume guardianship responsibilities. We affirm.

= = = =


Gordon Grannes, et al.,
Appellants,

vs.

Red Cedar of Yellow Medicine, Inc.,
Respondent.

LARKIN, Judge
In this post-remand appeal from judgment, appellants challenge the district court's award of property to respondent by adverse possession. Because the district court's findings of fact do not support the district court's conclusion that the elements of adverse possession were established as to the entire portion of the disputed property that was awarded to respondent, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

= = = =

A08-1279

In the Matter of the Child of: A. H. G. and B. A. P., Parents

PETERSON, Judge
In this appeal from a judgment terminating her parental rights, appellant-mother argues that the district court erred by (1) finding three statutory bases for terminating her parental rights and (2) determining that terminating her parental rights is in her child's best interests. We affirm.
 

 
 
 

  What day were you injured?

  / /


  What caused your injuries?
Traffic/Bicycle Accident
Work-Related Injury
Wrongful Death
Dog Bite
Slip and Fall
Other:


  How have your injuries affected

  your life?

 


  What kinds of medical care
  professionals have you seen?

 


  What has your treatment cost?

 

  Is Insurance Involved?
My insurance may cover
        this.

Someone else's insurance
        may cover this.

I already filed a claim.
I rejected a settlement
        offer.

I accepted a settlement
        offer.

  Were there any witnesses?
Bystanders Witnessed This.
Police Responded and Filed
        a Police Report

Police Responded but Did
        Not File a Police Report


 

 

          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.