2 Wm. Mitchell J.L. & Prac. 3
By: Markus C. Yira[1]
Introduction
In May 2008, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed survivors’ economic loss benefits under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minnesota Statute Sections 65B.41-71 (2006) (“the Act”).[2] In Perry, the Supreme Court narrowly defined the term “dependent” as used in the act to mean only a spouse or child; precluding a decedent’s live-in girlfriend from recovering survivors’ economic loss benefits under the Act.[3] Read the rest of this entry »