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.
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.
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.
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.
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 had jurisdiction because Jansen's
claim includes the $14, 548.26 State Farm has already paid
for medical expenses. State Farm appeals.
district court err in finding that it has subject-matter
jurisdiction because Jansen's ...