CanT e: Civil Other/Misc. xtfi? / l ii

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CanT e: Civil Other/Misc. xtfi? / l ii"

Jemimah Townsend
5 years ago
Views:

vs Integrity Mutual Insurance Company You are hereby notified that a judgment has been entered in the above entitled matter.

1 State of Minnesota Anoka County District Court Tenth Judicial District [ Court File Number: 02CV144! 77 CanT e: Civil Other/Misc. J E CURTIS ROEDER 7900 XERXES AVE S SUITE 2020 BLOOMINGTON MN xtfi? / l ii, of Judgment Tamblyn's Nursery, inc. vs Integrity Mutual Insurance Company You are hereby notified that a judgment has been entered in the above entitled matter. Judgment Information Entered Date November 24, 2015 Debtor(s) Integrity Mutual Insurance Company. Creditor(s) Tamblyn's Nursery, inc. Monetary Award: Monetary Amount: $ A true and correct copy of this notice has been served pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule Please be advised that notices sent to attorneys are sent to the lead attorney only. Note: Costs and interest will accrue on any money judgment amounts from the date of entry until the judgment is satisfied in full. Dated: November 24, 2015 Lori Meyer Court Administrator Anoka County District Court 325 East Main Street Anoka MN MNCISJGM111 STATE Notice of Entry of Judgment Revised: 09/2013 Page 1 of 2

" State of Minnesota Anoka County E CURTIS ROEDER 7900 XERXES AVE S SUITE 2020 BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 [ ],

vs Integrity Mutual Insurance Company You are notified that on November 24, 2015, the following was filed: Amended Order Dated: November 24, 2015 cc: BRADLEY CRAWFORD MANN Loft

2 " State of Minnesota Anoka County E CURTIS ROEDER 7900 XERXES AVE S SUITE 2020 BLOOMINGTON MN [ ], H!i,!,! District Court Tenth Judicial District Court File Number: 02CV j Case Type: Civil Other/Misc. Notice of Filing of Order Tamblyn's Nursery, inc. vs Integrity Mutual Insurance Company You are notified that on November 24, 2015, the following was filed: Amended Order Dated: November 24, 2015 cc: BRADLEY CRAWFORD MANN Loft Meyer Court Administrator Anoka County District Court 325 East Main Street Anoka MN A true and correct copy of this notice has been served pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule MNCISCIV140 STATE Notice of Filing of Order Rev. 09/2013

02CV144177 11/2412015 2:04:21 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA DISTRICT COURT TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Tamblyn's Nursery, Inc., VS. Plaintiff, Integrity Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant.

02CV144177 The aboveentitled matter came on Plaintiff's motion to confirm an Appraisal Award and for a trial on stipulated facts, exhibits and written submissions before Alan F.

3 02CV / :04:21 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA DISTRICT COURT TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Tamblyn's Nursery, Inc., VS. Plaintiff, Integrity Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO CONFIRM APPRAISAL AWARD, FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, POSTAWARD INTEREST AND COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS Court File No. 02CV The aboveentitled matter came on Plaintiff's motion to confirm an Appraisal Award and for a trial on stipulated facts, exhibits and written submissions before Alan F. Pendleton, Judge of District Court, Anoka, Minnesota. Both parties submitted trial briefs. Shortly before the scheduled trial date, the parties agreed to submit the case to Judge Pendleton on stipulated facts, stipulated exhibits and written submissions. On July 17, 2015, the parties filed stipulated facts and stipulated exhibits. The record was to be closed before Judge Pendleton on August 10, On September 10, 2015, the matter was reassigned to Judge Douglas B. Meslow, Judge of District Court, Anoka County Courthouse, Anoka, Minnesota. On September 23, 2015, a status conference call was held between the Court and the parties. The parties agreed that Judge Meslow could decide the case on the record previously submitted to Judge Pendleton. The parties also agreed to reopen the record for one more week to allow Defendant's counsel to supplement its argument. No additional submissions were filed or otherwise received by the Court. The record closed on October 1, Plaintiff was represented by E. Curtis Roeder, Esq. Defendant was represented by Bradley C. Mann, Esq.

02CV144177 On November 20, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff's motion. The Order did not contain the language allowing the court administrator to enter judgment.

NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the stipulated facts and exhibits, the Court makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The Stipulated Facts filed on July 17, 2015 are incorporated by reference into this

4 02CV On November 20, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff's motion. The Order did not contain the language allowing the court administrator to enter judgment. This Amended Order adds that Language. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the stipulated facts and exhibits, the Court makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The Stipulated Facts filed on July 17, 2015 are incorporated by reference into this Court's Findings of Fact and are attached to this Order. 1. Plaintiff Tamblyn's Nursery, Inc. ("Nursery") is the named insured under a Commercial Policy of Insurance #CPP ("Policy)" issued by Defendant Integrity Mutual Insurance Company ("Insurance"). 2. On December 12, 2010, Nursery reported a loss to Insurance following a snow storm that damaged two greenhouses, plants, and small equipment. Stipulated Fact 8 states that Insurance initially issued the following payments to Nursery: $96, (January 31,2011); $64, (February 9, 2011); and $39, (July 11,2011). 3. The parties dispute the value of Nursery's loss. Insurance determined the cost to replace the greenhouse buildings was $145, while Nursery determined the cost to replace the greenhouse buildings was $290, Insurance determined the cost to replace the plants was $64, while Nursery determined the cost to replace the plants was $66, The plants were located both inside and outside the greenhouses. Stipulated Fact #3 states that the outside plants were damaged by "Tamblyn's employees in an effort to remove snow from other structures located on the property to avoid further property damage." The total claim for the outside plants is $32,I The parties disagree over whether the loss of the outside plants is covered by the Policy. 5. The parties agreed to an appraisal of the remaining loss pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Policy. 6. Stipulated Finding #10 states that the appraisal took place on May 2, The award, dated May 11, 2014, specified the following values for the loss: 2

02CV144177 $239,875.00 for the greenhouses; $ 66,814.00 for the plants; and $ 1,000.00 for small equipment 7. On February 26, 2015, Insurance issued a payment of $71,874.

Coverage We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. 9.

5 02CV $239, for the greenhouses; $ 66, for the plants; and $ 1, for small equipment 7. On February 26, 2015, Insurance issued a payment of $71, to Nursery (Stipulated Finding #11). To date, Insurance has paid $272, to Nursery. (Stipulated Finding #12). 8. The Policy provides coverage as follows: A. Coverage We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. 9. The Covered Cause of Loss is found in Subpart D of the Causes of Loss portion of the Policy which provides that Insurance agrees to "pay for direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property, caused by a collapse of a building.., if the collapse is caused by weight of rain that collects on a roof." The parties do not dispute that the greenhouse roofs collapsed due to the weight of the snow and ice and that is a "Covered Cause of Loss" pursuant to the Policy. 10. Nursery's "Duties in the Event of a Loss or Damage" are found in Paragraph E, subsection 3 a_ (4) of the "Building and Personal Property Coverage Form" portion of the Policy. The relevant provision is as follows: You must see that the following are done in the event of loss or damage to Covered Property: (4) Take all reasonable steps to protect the Covered Property from further damage 11. Insurance contends that the damage to the outside plants was not a "direct physical loss" caused by the collapse, so Nursery is not covered under the initial grant of coverage under the Policy. Insurance argues that Exclusion M which excludes from coverage damage "where the neglect of an insured to use all reasonable means to save and preserve from further damage at or after the time of the loss" does not apply. 12. Nursery requests 1 The Court calculates $272, based on the amount ofthe payments in Stipulated Findings #8 and #l I. 3

02CV 144177 an award ofprejudgment interest from December 10, 2010 (the date of the loss) to May 11, 2014 (the date of the Appraisal Award) pursuant to Minn. Stat. 549.

Star. 549.02 and 549.04. 13. Insurance contends that Nursery's request for prejudgment interest is premature because the prejudgment interest provision of Minn. Stat. 549.09 only applies aider a final judgment.

6 02CV an award ofprejudgment interest from December 10, 2010 (the date of the loss) to May 11, 2014 (the date of the Appraisal Award) pursuant to Minn. Stat , subds, l(b)and 1(c)(2); an award of postjudgment interest on the unpaid balance from the date of the Appraisal Award until paid in full pursuant to Minn. Stat , subd. 2; and an award of costs and disbursements as the "prevailing party" pursuant to Minn. Star and Insurance contends that Nursery's request for prejudgment interest is premature because the prejudgment interest provision of Minn. Stat only applies aider a final judgment. From the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following as: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. "The scope of appraisal is limited to damage questions while liability questions are reserved for the courts... appraisers have authority to decide the "amount of loss" but may not construe the policy or decide whether the insurer should pay. "' Quade v. Secura Ins., 814 N.W.2d 703,706 (Mirm. 2012). 2. "In construing an insurance contract, the intention of the parties is the overriding concern, to be determined by the language of the entire contract." Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 294, 104 N.W.2d 19, 24 (1960). Language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Id 3. The parties stipulated that the outside plants were damaged by Nursery employees in an effort to remove snow to avoid further. The Policy requires Nursery to take all reasonable steps to protect the Covered Property from further damage. Since Nursery was required by the Policy to mitigate its damages and there is no evidence that Nursery failed to use reasonable means to remove the snow, the Court concludes that the damage to the outside plants is a covered by the Policy. 4. Minn. Stat subd. l(b) provides, in part, as follows: Except as otherwise provided by contract or allowed by law, preverdict, preaward, or prereport interest on pecuniary damages shall be computed as provided in paragraph (c) from the time of the commencement of the action or a demand for arbitration, or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first. 4

02CV144177 Minn. Stat. 549.09 subd. l(c)(1)(i) sets the interest rate at four percent (4%) for a judgment or award under $50,000.00. Minn. Stat. 549.09 subd. 1(c)(2) sets the interest rate at ten percent for a judgment or award over $50,000.

2d 743,752 (8th Cir. 1986). 6. There are (5) enumerated statutory exceptions to an award of prejudgment interest set forth in Minn. Stat. 549.09 subd. l(b).

7 02CV Minn. Stat subd. l(c)(1)(i) sets the interest rate at four percent (4%) for a judgment or award under $50, Minn. Stat subd. 1(c)(2) sets the interest rate at ten percent for a judgment or award over $50, One ofthe purposes of awarding prejudgment interest is to compensate the prevailing party for the true costs of damages occurred. Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Industries, lnc., 783 F.2d 743,752 (8th Cir. 1986). 6. There are (5) enumerated statutory exceptions to an award of prejudgment interest set forth in Minn. Stat subd. l(b). Appraisal awards are not one of the statutory exceptions. 7. One ofthe purposes of awarding prejudgment interest is to compensate the prevailing party for the true costs of damages incurred. Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Industries, Inc., 783 F.2d 743, 752 (8 th Cir. 1986). 8, Insurance's claim that the prejudgment interest request is premature is not supported by the language of the statute and, therefore, is without merit. ORDER FOR JUDGMENT 1. Plaintiffs' motion to conftrm the Appraisal Award is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded Judgment against Defendant for $35,127.43, the remaining amount of the May 11, 2014 appraisal award [Pursuant to Stipulated Finding #10, the award is $239, $66, $1,000 = $307, Pursuant to Stipulated Finding #12, Defendant has paid Plaintiff $272, which is $307, $272, , ] 2. Plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest is GRANTED. Preaward interest at a rate often percent (10%) per annum on the Appraisal Award is calculated as follows2: December 12, 2010 January 31,2011 = 50 days 365 days x.10 x $96, = $1,321.74; December 12, 2010 February 9, 2011 = 59 days days x.10 x $64, = $1,041.26; December 12, 2010 July 11, days 365 days x.10 x $20, = $1,220.97; December 12, 2010 July 12,2011 = 214 days 365 days x.10 x $18, = $1,106.37; December 12, 2010 Feb. 26, 2015 = 1539 days 365 days x.10 x $71, = $30,305.30; December 12, 2010 May 11, 2014 = 1248 days 365 days x.04 x $35, = $4, The Court's calculations regarding the number of days between the date of loss and the dates of payment is (2) days longer than the dates set forth in Plaintiff's proposed Order which would require Defendant to pay slightly more interest. The Court will use the number of days in Plaintiff's proposed Order. 5

notice of its provisions for all purposes.

8 02CV The court administrator shall mail a copy of this Order to counsel for the parties, which constitutes due and proper notice of its provisions for all purposes. THERE BEING NO JUST REASON FOR DELAY, LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY Dated:! a '(" 2.,, I I... Douglas B. Meslow Judge of District Court JUDGMENT The above Conclusions of Law and/or Order for Judgment constitutes the Judgement of the Court Lori Meyer, Court Administrator Date: 3:55 pm, Nov 24, 2015 By: f" (' 6

, Tamb)yn's Jul 17 2815 12:19:48 Via Fox 02CV144177 > 76342 919 onase Page 0f 8 3oka County, MN STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA d Tarnblyn's Nursery, Inc., vs. Plaintiff, FILED.

.,A'TED FAirS Integrity Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant. The pardes, by and.tmiough respective.counsel, stipulate and agree as follows: I. Tamblyn's Nursery, ]nc.

9 , Tamb)yn's Jul :19:48 Via Fox 02CV > onase Page 0f 8 3oka County, MN STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ANOKA d Tarnblyn's Nursery, Inc., vs. Plaintiff, FILED. Court Admmmtmt0d" JUL f I jj oka..m. N....2 DISTRICT COURT TENTH JUDICIAL DISTR2CT Case Type: Conteacl Court Fit No.: 02CV Judge: Alan Pendleton STIPUI..,A'TED FAirS Integrity Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant. The pardes, by and.tmiough respective.counsel, stipulate and agree as follows: I. Tamblyn's Nursery, ]nc. ("Tamblyn's") operat a nursery located in Anoka County., Integrity Mutual lm Company ("Integrity") insur Tamblyn's Nursm'y, lnc. ("Tamblyn's") subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions of policy number CPP * which was issu <[ to Ttumblyn's. 3. On December 12, 2010, a severe snow storm caused collapse and other damage to the greenhouse (the "Loss"). Specifically, iv,x) greenhouses were damaged, certain plants located within those grzenhouses were damaged, :as well as certain small equipment owned by Tamblyn's. A number of pertm iat plants that were located outside of the greenhouses were subsequently damaged by Tarnblyn's employ s.in an effort to remove snow tiara oiher.structurcs located on the property to avoid further property damage. 4. Tamblyn's reported the Loss to Integrity, who responded to the toss. 5. The jmrties disputed the amount and certain coverage aspects ofthe Loss., Integrity determined that the qost to repair Tamblyn's buildings was $145,219.36, and that the value of the plants was $64, Them was no determismtion by Integrity of the damage to the small equipment. contended that the cost to repair its damaged buildings was approxinmtely $290,000.!)0. Tamblyn's contend that the total cost for all plants gas $6& Of

Jul 17 15 12'19: Z Via Fa,x > 02CV144177 7634226919 V e Page 1 Of I;l[ l oka County, ua e claim for all the plants, approximately sixty (60) percent of" the 1188 Trade Gallon percmfials (or 720) at

by Tmblyn's employees while using, a bobcat.to remove snow from oth structures, located on the property to avoid further property damage to those.su',a:tures. 8.

10 Jul '19: Z Via Fa,x > 02CV V e Page 1 Of I;l[ l oka County, ua e claim for all the plants, approximately sixty (60) percent of" the 1188 Trade Gallon percmfials (or 720) at $I 0.00 each, m d 8, " pots of perennials at $3.00 each were located oulside o.f the collapsed gr mhouscs. The total claim for outside plants is $32, The outside plants were damaged.by Tmblyn's employees while using, a bobcat.to remove snow from oth structures, located on the property to avoid further property damage to those.su',a:tures. 8. Integrity initially issued the following payments to Tamb yn's: 8. b... $96, on January 31,2011; $64, on February 9, 2011; and $39, on Ju]y 11, Thc parties agreed to submit tim remainder of the dispute over the value of the Loss to appraisal. 10. An appraisal took place on May 2, The award, dated May 11, 2014 specified the following values for the loss: a b. C. $239, for ths grsenhous ; $66, for the plants; am $1,000 for e small equipment. Jl. Integrity subsequently tendered $71,g74.17 in payment towards the Loss on February To date, Integrity has paid $'272,561:57 to Tamblyn's in payment of the Loss.

Jul 17 2815 12:28:91 Via Fax > 02CV 144177 BIB Vo.

Cmtls Kocx[cr (# 1954 [81 7 q0 X rx Avenue Sc uth.suit 202 Minneapolis, MN 55423 Phm :: (952].2364'}7 ] Fsx: (952}'23602g ) cmcde,r rsjlawfiml.com.

11 Jul :28:91 Via Fax > 02CV BIB Vo.ge i1 11/ k 015 2:04:21 PM ag ]1,,,, ffoka County, MN Dated: July 13, 2015 IIOEDER SMITH JADIN, PLLC By: U. Cmtls Kocx[cr (# 1954 [81 7 q0 X rx Avenue Sc uth.suit 202 Minneapolis, MN Phm :: (952].2364'}7 ] Fsx: (952}'23602g ) cmcde,r rsjlawfiml.com.411m ey.vfbr lqam#fft unblyn ' Nursery. inc. Dated: July 13, 2015 ELLIOTT LAW O$31 1CF.,S, P.A. / t u k B. EtlJctt (#13466[) Bradley.C. Mann (# ) 2409 West 66 S 't Minnea oll% MN Phone: (612) Fa. (612) brad(' tl mdaw,net Afwrno,s.for Defendant Jntcgr'ily Mutuol ln. wance Company m.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A K & R Landholdings, LLC, d/b/a High Banks Resort, Appellant, vs. Auto-Owners Insurance, Respondent.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A16-0660 K & R Landholdings, LLC, d/b/a High Banks Resort, Appellant, vs. Auto-Owners Insurance, Respondent. Filed February 12, 2018 Reversed and remanded Schellhas,