We Play Hard. We Play Fair.
When an impaired driver causes a crash, the criminal case against that driver and your claim for compensation are two different matters. A DWI prosecution may address the driver’s conduct, but it does not pay your medical bills, replace lost income, or account for how a serious injury may affect your future.
At Restovich, Braun & Associates our personal injury attorneys help people injured by impaired drivers understand the potential sources of compensation available after a crash. Our Rochester law firm represents injured clients throughout southeastern Minnesota and handles matters elsewhere in Minnesota when appropriate. When several insurance policies or legal claims may be involved, our lawyers look beyond the immediate expenses to understand the full effect of the accident.
It is natural to focus first on the driver who caused the crash. That driver’s liability insurance may be an important source of compensation, but it is not necessarily the only one.
A Minnesota drunk-driving accident can involve several potential sources of benefits or recovery. Which ones apply depends on the circumstances of the collision, the insurance policies involved, the driver’s conduct, and other facts surrounding the crash.
A claim against the impaired driver’s liability coverage may address losses caused by the crash. For someone with serious injuries, however, the available liability coverage may not be sufficient to address all proven damages.
This can be particularly important when an injury requires surgery, extended rehabilitation, substantial time away from work, or long-term medical care.
Minnesota’s no-fault insurance system can provide benefits after a motor vehicle accident regardless of who caused the collision. Basic economic loss coverage provides at least $20,000 for medical-expense losses and another $20,000 for certain other economic losses, including qualifying income loss and replacement services, subject to applicable insurance and statutory requirements.
Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage may also become important. If an at-fault driver has no applicable liability coverage, uninsured motorist coverage may apply. If the driver’s liability coverage is insufficient in relation to the injured person’s damages, underinsured motorist coverage may provide an additional source of compensation, depending on the policy and circumstances.
Our uninsured and underinsured motorist attorneys can review the applicable policies and determine what coverage may be available rather than assuming the at-fault driver’s policy is the only place to look.
Some drunk-driving crashes raise a separate question: Where did the driver obtain the alcohol?
Minnesota law allows certain injured people to pursue a civil claim against a person or business that caused another person’s intoxication through an illegal sale of alcoholic beverages. These claims are often referred to as dram-shop claims.
Liability does not arise simply because a bar, restaurant, or other licensed seller served alcohol to someone who later caused a crash. The legal question is whether there was an illegal sale that caused the intoxication connected to the injury.
Not every impaired-driving accident involves an alcohol seller, but when the facts support such a claim, it can create another potential source of recovery. Dram-shop claims are also subject to requirements and deadlines that differ from an ordinary negligence claim.
The value of a drunk-driving injury claim depends on the injuries, financial losses, available evidence, insurance coverage, and other circumstances. Compensation may address both losses that have already occurred and, when supported by the evidence, losses expected in the future.
Depending on the case, damages may include:
For someone with relatively short-term injuries, evaluating these losses may be fairly straightforward. A serious injury can require a much longer view.
Compensatory damages are intended to address losses caused by an injury. Punitive damages serve a different purpose and are not available in every motor vehicle accident case.
Minnesota law specifically addresses punitive damages in crashes involving certain forms of impaired driving. A jury may be permitted to consider punitive damages when there is evidence that the accident was caused by a driver with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, a driver under the influence of a controlled substance, a driver who was under the influence of alcohol and refused a required chemical test, or a driver impaired by certain other intoxicating substances.
A criminal conviction is not required before punitive damages can be considered under this provision. Whether punitive damages are appropriate in a particular civil case still depends on the evidence and applicable legal requirements.
This is one reason a drunk-driving injury claim should not automatically be treated like any other car accident claim. The circumstances surrounding the driver’s impairment can create additional legal issues that need to be evaluated separately.
The first weeks after a crash rarely reveal everything an injury will mean for someone’s life. A person may still be undergoing treatment, unable to return to work, or uncertain whether surgery or additional rehabilitation will be necessary.
For someone with lasting injuries, the important questions extend beyond the bills that have already arrived. Will additional treatment be necessary? Will the person be able to return to the same work? Will physical limitations affect daily activities? Will assistance be needed at home?
Those questions matter because resolving an injury claim generally ends the ability to seek additional compensation from the same party for the same claim later. Before resolving a serious injury case, the evidence should provide as clear a picture as reasonably possible of the medical prognosis and the injury’s expected financial and personal effects.
A drunk-driving crash can produce more than one potential legal claim, and those claims do not necessarily share the same deadline.
Minnesota generally provides a six-year limitations period for many personal injury claims, but exceptions and different statutes can apply depending on the claim and the parties involved. Dram-shop claims are an important example: they generally have a two-year limitations period as well as a separate statutory notice requirement.
Timing can also affect the practical investigation of a case. Evidence concerning the collision, the driver’s impairment, insurance coverage, and a possible illegal alcohol sale may become more difficult to obtain as time passes.
Identifying the potential claims and their applicable requirements early can help prevent an otherwise valid claim from being affected by a missed deadline.
Restovich, Braun & Associates is a family-run Rochester law firm founded in 1992. Our attorneys are experienced litigators who understand that a serious accident can affect a client’s health, work, finances, family responsibilities, and future at the same time.
Our lawyers approach these cases collaboratively, drawing on the law firm’s litigation experience to evaluate disputed liability, insurance issues, damages, and other legal questions that may affect the claim. We prepare each matter based on its facts, whether it can be resolved through negotiation or requires litigation.
That practical approach allows our attorneys to focus on what matters in the individual case without relying on unnecessary conflict or one-size-fits-all strategies. From our Rochester law office, we provide personal injury representation to people dealing with the consequences of serious accidents in southeastern Minnesota and elsewhere in the state when appropriate.
If you or someone in your family has been injured by an impaired driver, understanding your potential claims can help you make informed decisions about what comes next.
To discuss a drunk-driving injury claim with one of our lawyers, contact Restovich, Braun & Associates online.
