Carol Jansen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company , 2017 Minn. App. LEXIS 29 ( 2017 )

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-0916
Carol Jansen,
Respondent,
vs.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,
Appellant.
Filed February 21, 2017
Reversed
Bjorkman, Judge
Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-CV-15-4067
Jeffrey M. Montpetit, Marcia K. Miller, Sieben Carey, PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent)
Suzanne Wolbeck Kvas, Lutter, Gilbert & Kvas, LLC, Eagan, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and
Bjorkman, Judge.
SYLLABUS
For purposes of Minn. Stat. § 65B.525, subd. 1 (2016), a claim is the dollar
amount of no-fault benefits alleged to be due and owing from the reparation obligor at the
time the no-fault proceeding is commenced.
OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant moved for summary judgment in this action for no-fault medical-
expense benefits on the ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction. The district
court denied the motion. We reverse.
FACTS
Respondent Carol Jansen was injured in a motor vehicle accident on December 5,
2013. At the time of the accident, Jansen was insured under an automobile insurance
policy issued by appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The
policy provides $20,000 in coverage for no-fault medical-expense benefits. Jansen
applied for no-fault benefits, and State Farm made payments. On July 27, 2014,
following an independent medical examination, State Farm discontinued no-fault
payments.
On November 24, 2015, Jansen commenced this action in district court seeking
recovery of “benefits due and owing” under her insurance policy. Discovery revealed
that State Farm had already paid $14,548.26 in medical-expense benefits and that Jansen
had $30,942.15 in unpaid medical bills. State Farm moved for summary judgment,
arguing that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that Jansen must
arbitrate her claim because it is less than the $10,000 jurisdictional limit provided in
Minn. Stat. § 65B.525, subd. 1. The district court denied the motion, concluding that it
2
had jurisdiction because Jansen’s claim includes the $14,548.26 State Farm has already
paid for medical expenses.1 State Farm appeals.
ISSUE
Did the district court err in finding that it has subject-matter jurisdiction because
Jansen’s no-fault claim exceeds $10,000?
ANALYSIS
On appeal from summary judgment, this court reviews de novo whether there are
any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application
of the law. STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 76-77 (Minn.
2002). The parties agree that there are no disputed fact issues and that the appeal turns on
an issue of statutory construction that we review de novo. Mitsch v. Am. Nat’l Prop. &
Cas. Co., 736 N.W.2d 355, 358 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2007).
The Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act provides for mandatory
arbitration “of all cases at issue where the claim at the commencement of arbitration is in
an amount of $10,000 or less against any insured’s reparation obligor for no-fault
benefits.” Minn. Stat. § 65B.525, subd. 1 (emphasis added). The act does not define
“claim.” But we are not left without guidance.
In Brown v. Allstate Ins. Co., where the claimant sought to waive part of her
unpaid medical expenses in order to qualify for arbitration, our supreme court held that
“claim,” as used in the statute, “is simply referring to the amount that the claimant is
1
The parties agree that the district court erred by including the medical-expense benefits
State Farm has already paid in determining the amount of Jansen’s claim.
3
asking for.” 481 N.W.2d 17, 19 (Minn. 1992). The supreme court has also turned to
Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of claim as “‘[t]he aggregate of operative facts
giving rise to a right enforceable by a court.’” Ill. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Glass Serv. Co.,
683 N.W.2d 792, 804 (Minn. 2004) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 240 (7th ed. 1999)).
And in determining whether a claim exceeds the jurisdictional limit, this court considered
the total amount “the claimant seeks from an insurer for medical and wage loss benefits.”
Hippe v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 565 N.W.2d 439, 442 (Minn. App. 1997).
Against this backdrop, we consider Jansen’s contention that her claim includes all
of her unpaid medical bills, which exceed $30,000. Noticeably absent from Jansen’s
analysis is any connection between the amount she claims and the amount for which State
Farm could be held responsible. State Farm argues that Jansen’s claim is limited to the
amount potentially due and owing from State Farm—far less than the $10,000
jurisdictional limit for no-fault arbitration. We agree with State Farm.
Jansen’s argument is inconsistent with the caselaw and the clear terms of Minn.
Stat. § 65B.525, subd. 1. While Jansen may be “asking for” more than $10,000 in
medical expenses, she cannot ask for more than $5,451.74 from State Farm because her
policy provides $20,000 in coverage and State Farm has already paid $14,548.26. In
other words, Jansen has no “right enforceable by a court” to recover any more than the
$5,451.74 in no-fault medical-expense benefits remaining under her insurance policy. Ill.
Farmers, 683 N.W.2d at 804 (quotation omitted). Finally, the statute describes the claim
as one “for no-fault benefits.” Minn. Stat. § 65B.525, subd. 1. Jansen’s complaint seeks
recovery for “all personal injury protection benefits due and owing from and after
4
December 5, 2013” under her policy. It is undisputed that at the time Jansen commenced
this action, the most State Farm could owe her for no-fault medical-expense benefits was
$5,451.74. Accordingly, Jansen may only pursue her claim in arbitration; the district
court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.2
DECISION
Because the amount of no-fault medical-expense benefits potentially due and
owing from State Farm is $5,451.74, Jansen may only pursue her claim in arbitration.
Reversed.
2
We decline to consider Jansen’s contention that she cannot obtain the same remedies in
arbitration because she did not present this argument in the district court. Thiele v. Stich,
425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1980). But we note that parties may seek to confirm,
vacate, or modify no-fault arbitration awards under Minn. Stat. §§ 572B.22-.24 (2016).
5