Auto Insurance Claim in Minnesota
An auto insurance claim in Minnesota has two parts:
- Minnesota no-fault insurance benefits from your insurance company
- pain and suffering compensation and additional compensation from the at-fault driver’s insurance company.
Minnesota No-Fault Auto Insurance Claim
In Minnesota, auto insurance is no-fault, meaning a driver involved in a motor vehicle accident has a right to payments from the driver’s insurance company for basic economic loss, including medical expenses, income loss, replacement services loss and, if the injury causes death, funeral expenses, survivor’s economic loss and survivor’s replacement services loss. Minnesota no-fault auto accident law is found in Minnesota Statutes Sections 65B.41 to 65B.71.
The no-fault auto insurance benefits are paid by your insurer. Unless you purchased additional no-fault coverage, your insurer must “provide for a minimum of $40,000 for loss arising out of the injury of any one person, consisting of: (1) $20,000 for medical expense loss arising out of injury to any one person; and (2) a total of $20,000 for income loss, replacement services loss, funeral expense loss [$2,000 limit], survivor’s economic loss, and survivor’s replacement services loss arising out of the injury to any one person” (Minn. Stat. Sec. 65B.44(a).
Auto Insurance Claim for Pain and Suffering and Amounts Not Covered by No-Fault Insurance
Pain and suffering includes amounts for pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment, or emotional distress that an injured person has experienced or will experience in the future due to the negligence of another. In auto accident cases, it is generally an at-fault driver, but it is possible to recover against a construction company that leaves a hazard in the road or does some other negligent thing.
The following are some issues that are taken into account when determining the amount of pain and suffering for a Minnesota auto accident:
- The type, extent, and severity of the injuries
- How painful the injuries were
- The treatment and pain involved in that treatment
- The length of time the injury or harm lasted
- the expected future pain and suffering.
Again, pain and suffering is not recoverable under no-fault insurance. You must seek compensation for pain and suffering from the at-fault driver’s insurance company or another company that is at-fault for your auto accident. In addition, that same party can be pursued for payment of medical expenses, lost wages and other economic losses in excess of the no-fault insurance limits.
For a free consultation, call 1-888-377-8900 (toll free), 612-338-0202 or submit our free consultation form. Our Minneapolis attorneys have won millions for people in auto insurance claim cases involving personal injury and wrongful death. Attorney Fred Pritzker is listed in the current edition of The Best Lawyers in America.
Minnesota Cities: Twin Cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester, Duluth, Moorhead, Mankato, Brainerd, Bloomington, Eagan, Eden Prarie, Apple Valley, Maple Grove, Edina, Plymouth, Minnetonka, Stillwater, Thief River Falls, Bemidji, Grand Rapids, Austin, Worthington, Woodbury, Maplewood, Golden Valley, Shoreview, Blaine, Anoka, South St. Paul, White Bear Lake, Roseville, St. Cloud, Arden Hills, Brooklyn Park, Forest Lake.
Supervalue Lawsuit Alleges Accident Linked to Sale of Liquor to a Minor
A lawsuit has been filed against Supervalue, Inc., a Minnesota-based company and Albertsons, LLC, the alleged owners of an Albertsons store that sold alcohol to an underage driver who later crashed his car into a bridge, killing himself and paralyzing Ryan Costello, a 22-year-old who has been in a wheelchair since the accident. The lawsuit was filed in Florida on Wednesday. This was a tragic and inexcusable accident.
Claims against stores that sell liquor are called dram shop claims. Under Minnesota law, dram shops are liable for accident injuries and deaths when they sell liquor to a minor driver who has an accident while intoxicated.
When we handle auto accident cases involving a drunk driver, we always investigate to determine if a dram shop violation played a role in the car accident. There are a couple of reasons for this: 1) the dram shop should be punished for breaking the law and 2) it provides the victim or heirs another party to pursue for compensation.
Ryan Costello’s mother explains why the lawsuit against Supervalue and Albertsons is important to her:
“It has been beyond catastrophic for a single mother,” she said.
The lawsuit is not just about the money, she said. Costello often talks to DUI offender classes about the dangers of drinking and driving, and she says she just wants to see a store she believes is consistently selling alcohol to minors to stop.
“I am not saying my son is not responsible for his part of what happened to him. As you can see, he’s paying severely for what he did,” Costello said. “I just want Albertsons to be held responsible to operate under the letter of the law. One boy lost his life, another boy lost the life he knew. I just don’t want any other mothers to go through this.”1
In these cases, dram shops are often not willing to settle for full and adequate compensation. Our attorneys have significant trial experience and have been successful against dram shops.
To contact an auto accident attorney at PritzkerOlsen, please call 612-338-0202, call 1-888-377-8900 (toll-free) or submit our free consultation form.
Reference:
1. Robert Napper, Family sues Albertsons over debilitating crash, Brandenton Herald, February 5, 2009.
Cell Phones, Texting and Driving: A Dangerous Mix
A few weeks ago, The National Safety Council (NSC) called for a nationwide ban on cell phone use while driving. Specifically, it requested all motorists to stop using cell phones and messaging devices while driving, urged businesses to enact policies prohibiting such use and called for the passage of laws in all states and the District of Columbia banning the behavior.
There is no shortage of data supporting the need for this action. According to the NSC:
- Using cell phones while driving is a very high risk behavior with significant impact on crashes and society. More than 50 peer-reviewed scientific studies have identified the risks associated with cell phone use while driving.
- Drivers who use cell phones are four times more likely to be in a crash while using a cell phone. (1997 New England Journal of Medicine examination of hospital records and 2005 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study linking crashes to cell phone records).
- There is no difference in the cognitive distraction between hand-held and hands-free devices. (Simulator studies at the U. of Utah.)
- Cell phone use contributes to an estimated 6 percent of all crashes, which equates to 636,000 crashes, 330,000 injuries, 12,000 serious injuries and 2,600 deaths each year. (Harvard Center of Risk Analysis).
- 80 percent of crashes are related to driver inattention. There are certain activities that may be more dangerous than talking on a cell phone. However, cell phone use occurs more frequently and for longer durations than other, riskier behaviors. Thus, the #1 source of driver inattention is cell phones. (Virginia Tech 100-car study for NHTSA).
- It is estimated that more than 100 million people use cell phones while driving. (CTIA – The Wireless Association reports 270 million cell phone subscribers. A Nationwide Insurance public opinion poll showed 81 percent of the public admit to talking on a cell phone while driving).
- The annual cost of crashes caused by cell phone use is estimated to be $43 billion (Harvard Center for Risk Analysis).
- Talking to a passenger while driving is significantly safer than talking on a cell phone. (University of Utah).
- Many businesses understand the risk and are already taking action. Among NSC members that responded to a survey, 45 percent (651 of 1453 respondents) said their companies had a cell phone policy of some kind. Of those, 22 percent said they re-engineered their processes to accommodate the policy and 85 percent said the policy did not affect productivity.
The NSC is not alone. Nationwide, a large automobile insurer, is also advocating for change. According to its recent fact sheet:
- Distraction from cell phone use while driving (hand held or hands free) extends a driver’s reaction as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08% (University of Utah).
- The No.1 source of driver inattention is use of a wireless device (Virginia Tech /NHTSA).
- Drivers that use cell phones are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves (NHTSA, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety).
- 10% of drivers aged 16 to 24 years old are on their phone at any one time.
- Driving while distracted is a factor in 25% of police reported crashes.
- Driving while using a cell phone reduces the amount of brain activity associated with driving by 37%. (Carnegie Mellon).
One need not be a safety expert to realize the danger associated with drivers distracted by cell phones and texting. Even a short trip on a metropolitan freeway reveals the perils of such behavior. What utility there is in such devices is outweighed by a hundredfold when measured by the death and devastation resulting from but one crash caused by a distracted driver.
As personal injury lawyers, we see the harms and losses resulting from unsafe cell phone use and texting. Many of our most seriously injured clients owe their lifetime of disability to a crash that would not have occurred but for this behavior.
We understand cell phone driving bans are controversial and should be carefully considered. We also understand, however, that the death and destruction from the use of these devices while driving continues to escalate.
Minnesota is one of the states that has put some restrictions on cell phone use while driving. Minnesota Statutes, Section 169.443, subdivision 9, was amended to read that a school bus driver may not operate a school bus while communicating over, or otherwise operating a cellular phone for personal reasons when the vehicle is in motion. This restriction applies whether the style of the cell phone is hand held or hands free. This also includes texting.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 171.05 and 171.055 states that provisional license holders and instruction permit holders who are under the age of 18 may not use cell phones when driving.
Although most Minnesota drivers may communicate on cell phones while driving, other communication with “wireless communication devices” is prohibited under Minnesota Statutes, Section 169.475:
No person may operate a motor vehicle while using a wireless communications device to compose, read, or send an electronic message, when the vehicle is in motion or a part of traffic.
We supported these measures and continue to advocate for safer roads.
