Office Move

We are excited to announce that the firm has completed it’s office move.

Our new address is:

1900 AT&T Tower

901 Marquette Ave S.

Minneapolis, MN 55402

LJSP Server migration 12/16-12/19 – Access extremely limited

LJSP’s servers will be down during this period while we perform a server migration.  The firm’s access to emails will be extremely limited throughout the weekend.  If it is urgent to reach someone over the weekend, please call Doug Sievers at 612-308-1337 and he will put you in touch with the appropriate person.  Thank you for your understanding.

2017 Five-State Midwest Law Update Webinar – Wednesday, October 25

Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. will be hosting its annual 2017 Five-State Midwest Law Update webinar from 9:00 A.M. to 11:05 A.M. The webinar will consist of concise presentations for Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota legal updates. Continuing education credits have been approved. Additional information and the link to register can be found here: Registration

Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. Attorneys Obtain and Defend Dismissal of MGDPA Claim

The Minnesota Data Practices Act does not cover data practices requests to attorneys who are working for a governmental agency in a professional capacity. That is the state of the law in Minnesota after the Minnesota Supreme Court denied further review of a published decision obtained by the Minnesota Court of Appeals that dismissed a Minnesota Data Practices Act claim against city attorney represented by Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A.

Paul Peterson, Eric Steinhoff, and João Medeiros secured dismissal at the district court. On appeal, Peterson, Bill Davidson, and Medeiros successfully defended the dismissal. On April 27, 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review of the published Court of Appeals Opinion, which can be found here.

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently sided with the arguments of Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson and denied further review of a summary judgment ruling in favor of a regional mental health center.

Hiawatha Valley Mental Health Center (HVMHC) had been sued for negligence and other claims arising from the death of a woman in 2013. The decedent’s next of kin argued that HVMHC breached a duty to the decedent and failed to provide services that may have avoided her death. Attorneys Tim Jung and Matt Sloneker argued to Judge Mary C. Leahy of the Winona County District Court that HVMHC did not owe a duty and therefore could not be held negligent. Judge Leahy agreed and granted summary judgment for HVMHC, dismissing the next of kin’s claims in their entirety.

On appeal, attorneys Bill Davidson and Grant Goerke successfully argued to the Minnesota Court of Appeals that Judge Leahy’s ruling was proper. The appellate court decided in an unpublished_opinion that HVMHC did not owe a duty based on tort, contract, or statute and affirmed Judge Leahy’s decision for HVMHC.

The next of kin sought further review, and Davidson and Goerke opposed that request on behalf of HVMHC. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed that further review was unnecessary, ending nearly three years of litigation. Order – PFR – Deny

Fredrickson and Goerke Win Motion For Summary Judgment

LJSP partner Mark Fredrickson and associate Grant Goerke successfully persuaded Scott County (MN) Judge Rex Stacey to grant summary judgment to their client ISD #719. Plaintiff sustained a bad broken ankle and leg when she went to pick up her daughter from a after school daycare facility run by the district at an elementary school building. The accident happened on a non-school day during the first winter weather of the year. Fredrickson and Goerke successfully argued that Minnesota’s mere slipperiness doctrine applied. Plaintiff argued that the daycare program was “for profit”, thereby depriving the district of the advantages of the doctrine which only applies to governmental entities. However, since state law specifically allowed the district to operate this program, and the fee it charged was not shown to be for anything other than to cover the cost of the program, the doctrine applied. Plaintiff admitted that she fell on glare ice, and that there was no accumulation of ice forming humocks and ridges. The court did not reach alternative theories including the continuing storm doctrine and the open and obvious doctrine. Congratulations to Mark, Grant and their client, ISD# 719. The order may be found here: Order for Judgment and Judgment 3-16-2017 12.54.13 61402370 D357C7A6-4444-462D-86E0-E34BB112966D

Bill Davidson & João Medeiros Prevail on a Plaintiff’s Appeal Challenging a District Court Victory By Jason Prochnow

The Minnesota Building Code means what it says, the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled, affirming a summary judgment ruling obtained by Jason Prochnow. The construction-defect case involved a lawsuit by a general contractor who sued a masonry subcontractor for installing a single layer of 15-pound felt behind stone veneer siding that the subcontractor had installed on a house in Minnesota. A district court judge dismissed the lawsuit last year after finding that the 15-pound felt was required by the Minnesota Building Code and therefore the subcontractor had done nothing wrong.

The contractor appealed the decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court should have applied the stucco provisions of the Code and that the district court should have let a jury consider expert testimony on what the Code required. Bill Davidson and João Medeiros represented the subcontractor in the appeal. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, ruling that expert testimony is not required to interpret an unambiguous provision of the Code. The appeals court agreed with the district court that the stone and masonry provisions of the Code controlled the installation of the stone-veneer siding, and that the subcontractor had used the materials required by the Code.

Eric Steinhoff & João Medeiros Secure Dismissal of Interest Claim

Interest does not accrue on money that is paid before it was due. That was the common-sense ruling recently obtained by Eric Steinhoff and João Medeiros in a lawsuit against a homeowners’ insurance company. The insurance company had helped the insured homeowners rebuild after their house had been damaged in a fire. Then, after a disagreement over the amount of the final payment, the insurance company and the homeowners asked a panel of appraisers to value the loss. The insurance company promptly paid the difference between what it had already paid and the appraisal value. The homeowners then sued the insurance company for interest on the award for the time between the fire and the payment of the appraised value of the loss—even for the amounts that the insurance company had already paid.

Relying on the text of the Minnesota Standard Fire Insurance Policy, which is written into state law, Eric Steinhoff and João Medeiros asked the district court to dismiss the case because interest would not begin to accrue until 60 days after the appraisal award was handed down— and the insurance company had paid its obligations in full within that time. The district court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit.

By coincidence, after Steinhoff and Medeiros filed arguments with the district court, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a decision in a different case reaching the same conclusion about the Minnesota Standard Fire Insurance Policy. The Minnesota Supreme Court is presently considering an appeal from the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision.

Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson Successfully Moved to Dismiss a Personal Injury Action Based on a Recent Change to Minnesota’s “hip pocket” Service Rule

Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson successfully moved to dismiss a personal injury action based on a recent change to Minnesota’s “hip pocket” service rule, defeating a 7.5-year-old claim for more than $50,000 in damages.

The plaintiff had alleged that he slipped and fell on a staircase at the defendant’s apartment complex in December 2008. The plaintiff did not serve his summons and complaint on the owner until December 2014, mere days before the six-year statute of limitations expired. He then waited another 15 months to file his summons and complaint in the district court.

Under previous versions of Minnesota’s civil procedure rules, the plaintiff’s delay in filing his case would not have been an issue. The old rules permitted “hip pocket” service, by which a plaintiff could serve his papers on a defendant and initiate litigation but never actually file the suit in district court. As of July 1, 2014, however, such indefinite delays are no longer allowed. Rule 5.04 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure now requires plaintiffs to file their lawsuits within one year of service on defendants.

Relying on Rule 5.04, LJSP attorneys Brian Wood and Grant Goerke moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall case, arguing that because the plaintiff filed his papers more than 3 months after the one-year deadline passed, the case should be dismissed. The Hennepin County District Court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in its entirety. The district court also agreed with Mr. Wood and Mr. Goerke’s argument that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief for excusable neglect.

LJSP Congratulates Connie Armstrong

Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. congratulates Connie Armstrong for her election as President of the Minnesota Women Lawyers. A copy of the MWL press release can be found here : MWL Press Release

Eric Steinhoff and João Medeiros Obtain Dismissal of Malpractice Lawsuit

Minnesota law protects members of specialized professions such as doctors, lawyers, or accountants from frivolous malpractice lawsuits by requiring plaintiffs to submit a declaration from an expert in the professional field attesting that the claim has merit. Attorneys Eric Steinhoff and João Medeiros recently invoked this law to obtain dismissal of a legal malpractice suit brought against a local divorce attorney.
The plaintiff was a client who had asked the attorney to represent her in a divorce proceeding. Before any papers were filed in court, the client stopped communicating with the attorney. The attorney wrote a letter to the client ending the attorney-client relationship and closing the file.
Two years later, the client sued the attorney for legal malpractice. Steinhoff and Medeiros requested that the plaintiff provide the expert-review declaration. Even after obtaining an extension from the Court, the plaintiff was unable to find an expert to attest that the divorce attorney had committed malpractice. Citing the expert-review law, the Court dismissed the case.

Brian Wood and João Medeiros Obtain Dismissal of So-Called “Gross Negligence” Claim Against Health Club

Minnesota common law does not recognize a separate claim of “gross negligence.” That is the conclusion reached by a district court judge in dismissing a lawsuit brought against a local health club represented by attorneys Brian Wood and João Medeiros. Instead, Minnesota courts only apply the concept of “gross negligence” when required to do so because the legislature has use the term in a statute or the parties have used the term in a contract.
The plaintiff was a member of the health club who initially sued for negligence, claiming to have been injured by hot steam in the club’s steam room. But Wood and Medeiros pointed out that the health club’s membership agreement waived the negligence claim.
The plaintiff attempted to save the lawsuit by amending the claim and alleging that the health club had not only been negligent, it had been “grossly” negligent. Relying on more than a century of Minnesota legal history stating that Minnesota does not distinguish between degrees of negligence, Wood and Medeiros asked the Court to dismiss the amended claim. The Court agreed. It dismissed the negligence claim based on the membership agreement and dismissed the “gross negligence” claim because it was not recognized by Minnesota law.
The Court also held that the new consumer contracts statute regulating waivers of “greater-than-ordinary negligence,” Minnesota Statutes § 604.055, did not apply to the membership agreement, which was signed before the effective date of the statute.

Jack Moore and Amber Garry Named North Star Lawyers by the MSBA

Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson is proud to announce that Jack Moore and Amber Garry have been named North Star Lawyers by the Minnesota State Bar Association. This honor recognizes the strong commitment that each of these attorneys made to providing legal services to those in need in 2015. The Minnesota State Bar Association’s North Star Lawyer program recognizes attorneys who provided a minimum of 50 hours of pro bono services to the community in a one-year period.

Tom Jensen and Liz Brotten to Speak at FETTI Conference in Chicago

Lind Jensen Shareholders Tom Jensen and Liz Brotten will speak at the Forum on Environmental and Toxic Tort Issues (FETTI) conference to be held September 21-23, 2016 at the Union League Club in Chicago. Their presentation will address the rapidly growing litigation in which female plaintiffs allege that they have developed ovarian cancer as a result of their use of products containing talcum powder. Jensen and Brotten will address disease data, scientific findings, litigation strategies, and predictions for the future of this area of toxic tort and product liability litigation.

The FETTI Conference is held each year in Chicago and focuses on a broad range of environmental issues with nationally recognized speakers. The conference offers informative programs to enhance the understanding of ever-changing environmental and toxic tort issues. Conference registration will be available at: http://www.fetti.org/annualconference/.

Minnesota Supreme Court Affirms Dismissal of Defamation Claim Against a Church and its Pastors

Tim O’Connor and Bill Davidson recently were successful in defending St. Matthew Evangelical Lutheran Church and two of its pastors against defamation claims from two excommunicated church members. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit, agreeing with both the district court and the Court of Appeals “that the First Amendment prohibits holding an individual or organization liable for statements made in the context of a religious disciplinary proceeding when those statements are disseminated only to members of the church congregation or the organization’s membership or hierarchy.” The decision, which addressed First Amendment concerns and the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine, is Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church, A14-605 (Minn. Apr. 6, 2016). The opinion is available at OPA140605-040616

2016 Five-State Midwest Law Update Webinar

On April 19, 2016, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. presented a live online webinar which provided a summary of current law and updates on law developments in the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The webinar consisted of 5 separate 20 minute presentations summarizing law updates in the areas of civil litigation relevant to your practice, including updates on topics such as negligence, indemnification, contract, and other law developments pertaining to litigation areas including but not limited to trucking accidents, professional liability, legal malpractice, medical malpractice, construction, premises liability, personal injury, commercial litigation, and insurance coverage.

The webinar may be viewed by clicking this link: 2016 Webinar

Attorneys Armstrong, Brotten, and Garry Recognized as “Top Women Attorneys in Minnesota”

Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson is pleased to announce that three of its women attorneys have been recognized by Super Lawyers® as among the 2016 “Top Women Attorneys in Minnesota.” The list includes Connie Armstrong, Elizabeth Sorenson Brotten and Amber Garry. The selections were made from the women attorneys who were selected as 2015 Minnesota Super Lawyers and  Rising Stars and were featured in the April 2016 issues of Twin Cities Business and Mpls. St. Paul Magazine. Super Lawyers® is a registered trademark of Thomson Reuters.

Armstrong has been selected as a Minnesota Rising Star since 2012 and included in the Top Women Attorneys in Minnesota list for the past three years. She is licensed to practice in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa and focuses her practice on counseling and defending employers in labor and employment matters and defending clients in business, construction and professional liability litigation.

 Brotten has been recognized as a Minnesota Rising Star every year since 2011 and has been named an “Up and Coming Attorney” by Minnesota Lawyer.  Brotten focuses her practice on the defense of personal injury claims, with a focus on the defense of product liability and toxic tort claims.  Brotten has tried cases to verdict in both Minnesota and North Dakota, and is also licensed to practice in South Dakota and Wisconsin.    

 Garry has successfully represented clients at all phases of civil litigation, including dispositive motion practice, mediation, and at trial. She focuses her practice on professional liability litigation for healthcare providers. Garry handles a wide variety of claims, including those alleging negligence and negligent nondisclosure, as well as claims involving health care providers in administrative proceedings before licensing boards.

Tim O’Connor and Elizabeth Brotten Win Motion for Summary Judgment for Insurance Client in Declaratory Judgment

An insurance company client represented by Tim O’Connor and Elizabeth Brotten was recently dismissed via summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  Lind Jensen’s client asserted that the homeowners policy it issued did not provide coverage for personal injuries arising out of its insured’s operation of a John Deer Gator utility vehicle owned by a vineyard.  The accident at issue happened on the vineyard’s property. 

 The court agreed that the motorized land vehicle exclusion in the policy excluded coverage.  At issue was whether a “recreational use” exception to the motorized land vehicle exclusion applied and provided coverage for the alleged personal injuries.   The court agreed with the position advanced by Lind Jensen’s client that “recreation use” exception did not apply because the utility vehicle at issue was not “principally designed for recreational use.”  To reach this conclusion, the Court relied heavily on language from the Gator’s operator’s manual and promotional materials, the general use of the Gator, testimony from witnesses about their use of the Gator, and warning labels on the Gator.  The Court ultimately concluded that Lind Jensen’s client had no obligation to provide coverage, defense, or indemnity to its insured because the Gator did not fall within the plain language of the exception to the motorized land vehicle exclusion.  

Brotten Authors North Dakota Chapter for DRI’s Duty to Defend Compendium

Elizabeth Sorenson Brotten, a shareholder at Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A. authored the North Dakota Chapter for the 2016 Edition of the Defense Research Institute’s Duty to Defend Compendium. 

The Duty to Defend Compendium analyzes whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured and the extent of that duty.  The Compendium surveys the law and provides guidance for insurance professionals to navigate through these issues under the law of every jurisdiction in the United States, Canada, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. 

 Brotten focuses her practice on defending clients in high-risk toxic tort, product liability, and general liability cases in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.  Within DRI, she serves in leadership positions on the national steering committees for Toxic Tort and Environmental Law, Women in the Law and Young Lawyers. 

Paul Peterson and Amber Garry Obtain Medical Malpractice Defense Verdict

Mr. Peterson and Ms. Garry obtained a defense verdict following an eight-day jury trial in Hennepin County. The plaintiff sued the defendant neurologist and neurology clinic alleging defendants failed to diagnose an infection in her spine, resulting in permanent paraplegia. Plaintiff sought damages in excess of $6 million. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding no negligence.