Tom Jensen, Bill Davidson, and Stuart Campbell recently obtained a complete victory from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The appeal involved crossclaims between the defendants in a personal injury action, and addressed questions of law regarding statutory and common law indemnification when an allegedly negligent employee is protected from out-of-pocket loss by personal liability insurance.

The plaintiff alleged injuries stemming from a massage, and she named the involved massage therapist and chiropractic clinic as defendants. Lind, Jensen represented the clinic. Plaintiff’s claims were ultimately settled, and the defendants’ insurers paid their settlement sums. For her crossclaim, the therapist argued that her personal insurer must be reimbursed by the clinic for the settlement sum paid to plaintiffs because she was entitled to statutory indemnification as the clinic’s employee. The clinic argued that statutory indemnification was precluded because the therapist had been indemnified by her personal insurer, and the clinic responded with its own crossclaim for common law indemnification to be paid by the therapist’s insurer. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the clinic on both claims. The therapist appealed.

In a published opinion, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the applicable employee indemnification statute was Minn. Stat. § 302A.521, which requires an employer to provide indemnification when an employee “has not been indemnified by another organization.” The Court of Appeals affirmed and concluded that under the statute, a person who has been indemnified by personal insurance is not entitled to statutory indemnification because the insurer is “another organization.” The Court of Appeals further held that common law indemnification claims are only precluded when the requirements for statutory indemnification are met. The Court of Appeals determined that the requirements for statutory indemnification were not met because the therapist had been indemnified by her insurer. Because the therapist failed to establish a right to statutory indemnification, the Court of Appeals concluded the clinic’s crossclaim could proceed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court.