Recently, the Court of Appeals in King’s Cove Marina, LLC v. Lambert Commercial Constr. LLC, 937 N.W.2d 458 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019), review granted (Feb. 26, 2020) held that when an insured and a claimant enter into a Miller-Shugart agreement, the parties must allocate the agreed-upon damages between excluded damages and covered damages, the failure to make the allocation rendered the Miller-Shugart settlement unreasonable and, therefore, unenforceable as a matter of law. The Minnesota Supreme Court had previously ruled that where there were multiple defendants, the prudence or reasonableness of any Miller-Shugart settlement was to be judged from the vantage point of each defendant. As a result, without an allocation of damages among defendants, the Court could not determine the reasonableness of the settlement. See, Bob Useldinger & Sons, Inc. v. Hangsleben, 505 N.W.2d 323, 331 (Minn. 1993). In Kings Cove, the Minnesota Court of Appeals used similar reasoning and found that the Court could not determine the reasonableness of the Miller-Shugart settlement from the standpoint of the insurer unless the settlement allocated the proceeds between covered and non-covered claims and damages. The party seeking to enforce the Miller-Shugart agreement carried the burden of establishing the allocation. Failure to allocate damages rendered the Miller-Shugart agreement unenforceable and unreasonable as a matter of law.
MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT INSUREDS ARE REQUIRED TO ALLOCATE SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN COVERED AND NONCOVERED CLAIMS
On Behalf of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert | Dec 3, 2020 | Firm News, Insurance Law
Categories
- Bad Faith (28)
- Damage Coverage (3)
- Discharged Attorney (1)
- Firm News (61)
- Injuries (15)
- Insurance Law (147)
- Liability (16)
- Medical Malpractice (5)
- Volunteer Defense (1)
Archives
- April 2022 (2)
- March 2022 (7)
- February 2022 (2)
- December 2021 (4)
- November 2021 (2)
- September 2021 (4)
- August 2021 (2)
- July 2021 (4)
- June 2021 (4)
- May 2021 (3)
- April 2021 (5)
- March 2021 (2)
- February 2021 (3)
- January 2021 (4)
- December 2020 (5)
- November 2020 (3)
- October 2020 (4)
- September 2020 (3)
- August 2020 (4)
- July 2020 (4)
- June 2020 (4)
- May 2020 (4)
- April 2020 (5)
- March 2020 (2)
- February 2020 (3)
- January 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (3)
- November 2019 (3)
- October 2019 (4)
- September 2019 (4)
- August 2019 (3)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (4)
- May 2019 (5)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (3)
- February 2019 (4)
- January 2019 (3)
- December 2018 (3)
- November 2018 (4)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (4)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (4)
- June 2018 (4)
- May 2018 (5)
- April 2018 (4)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (4)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (3)
- November 2017 (4)
- October 2017 (4)
- September 2017 (4)
- August 2017 (4)
- July 2017 (4)
- June 2017 (5)
- May 2017 (4)
- April 2017 (4)
- March 2017 (5)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (5)
- November 2016 (4)
- October 2016 (4)
- September 2016 (4)
- August 2016 (5)
- July 2016 (4)
- June 2016 (1)
Recent Posts
- DEFENSE COSTS REIMBURSEMENT CONSIDERED BY NEVADA COURT
- “SEWERAGE” NOT REQUIRED TO INVOKE BACK-UP AND OVERFLOW FROM SEWER EXCLUSION
- TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT INSURANCE POLICY’S APPRAISAL CLAUSE ALLOWS CAUSATION DETERMINATIONS
- TO ESTABLISH BAD FAITH FAILURE TO SETTLE, IN CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE BOTH THAT A REASONABLE SETTLEMENT DEMAND WAS MADE, IN ADDITION TO UNREASONABLE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER
Learn More About Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert
- Teaching
- Education and Scholastic Activities
- Judicial Law Clerkships, Internships, Boards and Certifications
- American Law Institute
- American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel
- Arizona Insurance Institute
- Professional Recognition
- Books Published
- Published Case Reviews
- Academic Journals and Law Reviews
- Other Professional Publications
- Speaker/Presentations
- Professional Activities

