Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company (Midwest) appealed a summary judgment favoring AMCO Insurance Company, contesting the trial court's ruling that Midwest's contribution claim was invalid due to its failure to notify AMCO of a settlement with an underinsured motorist. The case stemmed from a 1981 car accident, where Midwest's insured, Renee Totzke, settled with an underinsured tortfeasor without informing AMCO, as required under Minnesota law. The court held that failure to provide a 30-day notice to AMCO of the settlement precluded Midwest from seeking underinsured motorist benefits, thus upholding the summary judgment. Additionally, Midwest's attempt to introduce new materials not present in the trial court was denied, and AMCO's motion to strike these materials was granted, confirming that the appellate court reviews only the trial court's record. Consequently, issues of apportionment and the primacy of insurance policies were not addressed, and the appellate decision affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of AMCO.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Record Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court confined its review to materials presented at the trial court level, excluding any new evidence introduced by Midwest.
Reasoning: Midwest's appendices contain material not presented in the trial court, and only the trial court's filings constitute the appellate record.
Motion to Strike Inadmissible Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: AMCO successfully moved to strike parts of Midwest's brief that contained inadmissible evidence not part of the trial court record.
Reasoning: Consequently, AMCO's motion to strike is granted, and the decision is affirmed.
Notice Requirement for Underinsurer under Minnesota Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case reaffirmed that an underinsurer must receive a 30-day notice of any settlement to protect its subrogation rights. Midwest's failure to notify AMCO resulted in forfeiting its claim for UIM benefits.
Reasoning: The court reiterated that under Minnesota law, an underinsurer is entitled to such notice to protect its subrogation rights. The failure to provide that notice results in the forfeiture of the insured's right to pursue UIM benefits against the underinsurer.
Requirement for Schmidt Notice in Settlement Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the principle that Schmidt notice is uniformly required for all settlements involving underinsured motorist claims, regardless of the insurer's previous knowledge or involvement.
Reasoning: Midwest has not adequately justified an exception to the requirement that UIM carriers receive a 30-day notice regarding proposed settlement agreements between insureds and third-party tortfeasors.