Preview:

Scott Johnson and Sue Johnson, individually and d/b/a Marketplace Meats, and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Caitlin Johnson and Austin Johnson, Responden...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A04-2290 Scott Johnson and Sue Johnson, individually and d/b/a Marketplace Meats, and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Caitlin Johnson and Austin Johnson, Respondents, vs. Foundry, Inc., a/k/a Foundry Bar, a/k/a Foundry, Appellant, Lumberjack Lounge, Inc., a/k/a Lumberjack Lounge, Defendant. Filed August 2, 2005 Certified question answered in the negative Stoneburner, Judge Carlton County District Court File No. CX031068 Thomas M. Skare, Skare Law Office, Inc., 1429 Cloquet Avenue, Cloquet, MN 55720 (for respondents) Steven E. Tomsche, Bryan B. Carroll, Tomsche, Sonnesyn &Tomsche, P.A., 610 Ottawa Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55422 (for appellant) Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Dietzen, Judge. SYLLABUS The owners of a corporation and their dependents, who claim the corporation lost profits due to the acts of an intoxicated driver who damaged the property from which the corporation conducted its business, cannot assert those lost-profits claims as claims for loss of means of support under the Minnesota Civil Damages Act against the liquor vendor that illegally sold intoxicating beverages to the intoxicated driver. OPINION STONEBURNER, Judge The district court concluded that the sole shareholders of a corporation whose place of business was damaged by an intoxicated driver may assert a claim under the Minnesota Civil Damages Act, individually and

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/opa042290-0802.htm[4/16/2013 9:13:51 PM]

Scott Johnson and Sue Johnson, individually and d/b/a Marketplace Meats, and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Caitlin Johnson and Austin Johnson, Responden...

on behalf of their minor children, for loss of means of support based on property damage to the building from which the corporation conducted its business, which damage resulted in lost profits. The district court then certified as an important and doubtful question: Do the owners of a business who claim lost profits as a result of property damage sustained to the building where the business was located, which damage was caused by the acts of an intoxicated motorist, have claims for loss of means of support, under the Minnesota Civil Damages Act, against the liquor vendor who allegedly made an illegal sale of intoxicating beverages to the intoxicated motorist? We answer the certified question in the negative. FACTS Respondents Susan and Scott Johnson are the sole shareholders of Marketplace Meats, Inc., a retail meat market and grocery business. An intoxicated driver was illegally served alcoholic beverages by appellant Foundry, Inc. and subsequently caused damage to the building from which Marketplace Meats, Inc. conducted business. The corporation lost profits due to the damage. In order to come within the loss-of-means-of-support coverage provision of Foundry's liquor-liability insurance policy, respondents, suing as individuals and on behalf of their two minor children, asserted a claim under the Minnesota Civil Damages Act for loss of means of support, claiming that they are dependents of the injured corporation. Foundry moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Act does not contemplate categorizing lost profits from property damage as loss-of-means-of-support damages. The district court denied summary judgment but certified the issue to this court as an important and doubtful question. ISSUE Do the owners of a business who claim lost profits as a result of property damage sustained to the building where the business was located, which damage was caused by the acts of an intoxicated motorist, have claims for loss of means of support, under the Minnesota Civil Damages Act, against the liquor vendor who allegedly made an illegal sale of intoxicating beverages to the intoxicated motorist? ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(i) provides that an appeal may be taken to this court from an order that denies a motion for summary judgment if the district court "certifies that the question presented is important and

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/opa042290-0802.htm[4/16/2013 9:13:51 PM]

Scott Johnson and Sue Johnson, individually and d/b/a Marketplace Meats, and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Caitlin Johnson and Austin Johnson, Responden...

doubtful." On review of a certified question arising from denial of summary judgment, "we review the record to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied." Murphy v. Allina Health Sys., 668 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 18, 2003). The parties agree that no material facts are in dispute and that the resolution of the certified question involves the interpretation of the Civil Damages Act. "Interpretation of the Civil Damages Act is a question of law, which an appellate court reviews de novo." Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. A & A Liquors of St. Cloud, 649 N.W.2d 867, 871 (Minn. App. 2002). II. A corporation's lost profits due to property damage inflicted by an intoxicated driver cannot be recovered by shareholders and their dependents as loss-of-means-of-support damages under the Civil Damages Act. The Minnesota Civil Damages Act provides, in relevant part: Right of action. A spouse, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person injured in person, property, or means of support, or who incurs other pecuniary loss by an intoxicated person or by the intoxication of another person, has a right of action in the person's own name for all damages sustained against a person who caused the intoxication of that person by illegally selling alcoholic beverages. Minn. Stat.

Download opa042290-0802.pdf

Minnesota Law