The Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision on January 23, 2013 in Engineering and Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co., Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, reversing a problematic decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals that imposed a contractual indemnification obligation on a subcontractor, Bolduc, which was found not negligent at a jury trial for underlying property damage.   Mike Kreidler represented Bolduc at trial, and both Louise Behrendt and Mike Kreidler represented Bolduc throughout the appellate process. 

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision is significant because it reiterates that the anti-indemnification provisions of Minn. Stat. 337.02 are alive and well, and that such indemnification obligations rise and fall on what the construction contract requires with regard to the subcontractor’s obligation to procure insurance.  Specifically, the Court affirmed what Minnesota’s anti-indemnity law, Minn. Stat. 337.03 makes clear:  indemnity agreements that obligate a subcontractor to indemnify a general contractor for the general contractor’s own negligence are prohibited and that this unenforceable obligation is “saved” only to the extent that, under Minn. Stat. 337.05, subd. 1, the contract obligates the subcontractor to get specific insurance for the general contractor, covering the unenforceable indemnification obligation.  Finally, the Court concluded that indemnification obligations may be  directly imposed upon the subcontractor, with regard to the general contractor’s fault, only if the general contractor demonstrates three things, under MInn. Stat. 337.05, subd. 2:  that  specific types and limits of insurance (covering the general’s own fault) were supposed to be obtained via the contract; that a claim arose within the scope of the specified insurance; and that the subcontractor did not obtain and keep in force the specified insurance.

In August 2012 Rich Scattergood was appointed Secretary of the Board of Directors of Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association (MDLA) at the MDLA’s summer conference in Duluth.

In August 2012 Garth Unke and Stacey Sever obtained a favorable settlement of a product defect (wrongful death) case on behalf of their product manufacturer client.  The case involved product defect claims including insufficient and defective warnings, and defective design.  Economic loss damages alone were claimed at over $3 million dollars.  The case resolved favorably on a confidential basis.

In August 2012, Louise Behrendt successfully obtained an affirmance from the Minnesota Court of Appeals of the summary judgment dismissal of the firm’s window manufacturer client in a large construction defect case involving a commercial building.  The decision may be accessed at http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/1208/opa120168-082712.pdf .

In August 2012, Garth Unke and Stacey Sever successfully obtained the dismissal with prejudice of a product distributor client in a wrongful death product defect case.  The dismissal was obtained by way of a motion based on the Seller’s Exception Statute, Minnesota Statute §544.41.

In August, 2012, Jesse Beier won a summary judgment dismissal of a premises liability claim on behalf of his clients, a major Twin Cities shopping mall and property management company.  The plaintiff had sustained a significant injury in a slip and fall accident while attempting to cross a parking lot median in the middle of winter.

In July, 2012 Louise Behrendt and Mike Kreidler obtained summary judgment from the Goodhue County District Court in a negligence-based wrongful death case involving an ATV accident on a DNR trail. The court decided that the firm’s client, a paving company, did not breach a duty of care.