Opinion ID: 1249235
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: American Family's Position

Text: American Family argues that Nelson is not entitled to no-fault benefits because any payment of no-fault benefits in addition to the $37,000 South Dakota judgment would constitute a double recovery that is against the policy of the No-Fault Act. However, the result advocated by American Family leaves Nelson worse off than she would have been if American Family had promptly paid no-fault benefits and then asserted a subrogation interest under Minn.Stat. § 65B.53. Further, it places American Family in a better position than it would have been had it paid Nelson no-fault benefits when she originally requested them. American Family would, in essence, receive the equivalent benefit of its full subrogation interest from the tort judgment without contributing anything for the attorney fees paid to obtain that judgment. American Family's position is summarized as follows: No-Fault Benefits Paid Before Tort Action $ 0.00 Nelson's Tort Judgment $37,000.00 Nelson's Attorney Fees -$12,333.33 Nelson's Net Tort Recovery $24,666.67 American Family's Payment Following Tort Action $ 0.00 Nelson's Combined Net Recovery $24,666.67 If we adopt American Family's argument, we will be providing an incentive for similarly situated no-fault insurers to deny prompt payment of no-fault benefits in anticipation of the insured recovering a judgment against a tortfeasor. We conclude that such an incentive is contrary to the stated purposes of the No-Fault Act to provide prompt payment of benefits and speed the administration of justice. Minn. Stat. § 65B.42.