Opinion ID: 2229450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect on Pending Causes of Action and Administrative Proceedings.

Text: The second and third certified questions may be treated together. They are: (2) What effect does the termination of the Minnesota Pension Act have upon any cause of action which may have accrued prior to the date of such termination but upon which no administrative proceeding had been commenced? (3) What effect does the termination of the Minnesota Pension Act have upon any cause of action which was the subject of a pending administrative proceeding on the date of the termination of the Act? Allied vigorously contends the null and void language of the Act would render any pending matters totally without effect. Two considerations, however, require an opposite result. First, the Act must be construed as a whole and in light of the evil which it sought to remedy. The drafters of the Act were aware of ERISA and the provisions it likely would have in its final form. As already discussed, when the Act was passed both the United States Senate and House had passed their own versions of ERISA and the conference committee had yet to recommend final provisions. The Minnesota legislature passed the Act with the knowledge that ERISA was pending, but without knowing when (and if) it would finally become effective. With this in mind, it appears clear that what was intended was a continuous period of coverage. If the Act were not to apply to causes of action pending on the date of its termination (or of its preemption by ERISA), the legislature would have performed a useless act. An act would have been passed which would have had no effect. [16] We decline to so hold. See, Minn.St. 645.17(2). Second, the Act did not end by its own terms. Instead, the Act was preempted. See, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1144; Fleck v. Spannaus, 412 F.Supp. 366, 369. For the Act to terminate by its own provision and thus put the words null and void in issue, ERISA must provide equivalent benefits. As discussed, however, ERISA would not have provided equivalent benefits until at least January 1, 1976. Thus, the termination provision of the Act did not come into operation. Rather, the Act was preempted before that could happen. Thus, our answer to both the second and third certified questions is none.