Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-1376 Columbia Casualty Company, et al., Respondents, vs. 3M Company, Appellant, ACE American Insurance Company, et al., Respondents, Arrowood Indemnity Company, Respondent, Atlanta International Insurance Company, Respondent, Centennial Insurance Company, Respondent, Employers Insurance of Wausau, et al., Respondents, Evanston Insurance Company, Respondent, Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., Respondent, Fairmont Premier Insurance Company, et al., Respondents, First State Insurance Company, et al., Respondents, Great American Insurance Company, Respondent,

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Respondent,

Mutual Marine Office, Inc., et al., Respondents, One Beacon America Insurance Company as successor in interest to Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation, et al., Respondents, Republic Western Insurance Company, Respondent, Westport Insurance Corporation f/k/a Puritan Insurance Company f/k/a The Manhattan Fire & Marine Insurance Company, et al., Respondents. Filed March 26, 2012 Reversed and remanded Larkin, Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-C2-07-002419

Jeanne H. Unger, Mark R. Bradford, Bassford Remele, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and David E. Schoenfeld (pro hac vice), Grippo & Elden LLC, Chicago, Illinois (for respondents Columbia Casualty Company, et al.) Douglas L. Skor, Paula Duggan Vraa, Patrick J. Boley, Larson King, LLP, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant) Richard D. Snyder, Thomas Fraser, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Paul W. Kalish, Margot L. Green, Christie S. Hudson, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C. (for respondents Ace European Group, Ltd., et al.)

2

Bryan S. Chapman, Bruce D. Celebrezze, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP, Chicago, Illinois; and Jacob M. Tomczik, Aafedt, Forde, Gray, Monson & Hager P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Arrowood Indemnity Company) Timothy J. O'Connor, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Centennial Insurance Company) Skip Durocher, Bryan C. Keane, Tim Droske, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Employers Insurance of Wausau) Richard P. Mahoney, Mahoney, Dougherty & Mahoney, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Robert P. Siegel, Vivian Villegas, Traub Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne, New York (for respondent Evanston Insurance Company) John M. Anderson, Robin Ann Williams, Bassford Remele, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Executive Risk Indemnity Inc.) Dyan J. Ebert, Quinlivan & Hughes P.A., St. Cloud, Minnesota; and John T. Harding, Morrison Mahoney LLP, Boston, Massachusetts (for respondent Fairmont Premier Insurance Company) Robert L. McCollum, McCollum, Crowley, Moschet & Miller, Ltd., Bloomington, Minnesota; and Edward B. Parks II, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Washington, D.C. (for respondent First State Insurance Company) Charles E. Spevacek, Amy J. Woodworth, Meagher & Geer PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Great American Insurance Company) Timothy P. Tobin, Timothy J. Crocker, Gislason & Hunter LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Ira Revich, Caroline van Oosterom, Charlston, Revich & Wollitz LLP, Los Angeles, California (for respondent Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company) Thomas D. Jensen, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Mutual Marine Office, Inc.) 3

James T. Martin, Joel M. Muscoplat, Gislason, Martin, Varpness & Janes P.A., Edina, Minnesota (for respondent One Beacon America) Thomas P. Kane, Michelle D. Mitchell, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Republic Western Insurance Company) Peter VanBergen, Cousineau McGuire & Anderson, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Atlanta International Insurance Company) Paul R. Smith, Foley & Mansfield, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Westport Insurance Corp., et al.)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.* SYLLABUS A party may maintain both a claim for breach of contract and a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the same conduct.

OPINION LARKIN, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of its claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because the dismissal was based on the erroneous conclusion that a party may not maintain both a claim for breach of contract and a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the

*

Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI,

Download A11-1376, Columbia Casualty Company, et al., Respondents, vs. 3M Company, Appell

Minnesota Law