I said, no, you make your payment as you're obligated to do under the petition. They finally went ahead and did that, and then in October of 1996 started this lawsuit seeking reimbursement. As noted by the district court, there is no support for Raymond's position that Allied's failure to pay her basic economic loss benefits when due under the no fault statute constitutes a waiver of Allied's right to reimbursement under Minn. Stat. Raymond argues that the equitable doctrine of unclean hands works to justify the denial of Allied's right to reimbursement under the no fault statute. The granting of equitable relief is within the discretion of the district court, and its decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.
Equitable relief is granted only upon a showing of the inadequacy of any legal remedy.
The no fault act provides an express remedy if an insurer improperly refuses to pay no fault benefits promptly. This provision serves to compensate the insured for the use of his or her money and as a penal purpose to promote prompt payment of benefits by insurers. See Streich v. American Family Mut. Raymond did not and does not now argue that this remedy is inadequate. Because the no fault statute provides a specific legal remedy of money damages for an insurer's nonpayment of no fault benefits and Raymond has made no showing or argument that this remedy is inadequate, we conclude the district court properly refused to grant Raymond's request for equitable relief under the doctrine of unclean hands.