Notable Opinions: Week of June 1, 2026

Line-of-Duty Death

The widow of a police officer who died from a vascular rupture sought line-of-duty death benefits, but the Commissioner denied the claim and an ALJ granted summary disposition. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the wrong legal framework was applied. The Supreme Court clarified that deaths from heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture are presumed line-of-duty if statutory criteria are met, and that emergency responses are inherently “nonroutine.” If the presumption does not apply or is rebutted, the officer’s estate may present medical evidence under Kramer and Johnson. The decision was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

In re Pub. Safety Officer Death Benefit, Supreme Court

Duty to Defend

In a case stemming from a motorcycle accident in a construction zone, a law firm sought reimbursement for attorney fees after an insured retained independent counsel when the insurer defended under a reservation of rights. The Court of Appeals held that a conflict of interest arises when coverage depends on facts also at issue in the underlying case. Here, the insurer’s reservation turned on whether the insured was independently negligent, the same issue to be decided in litigation. This created an actual conflict, entitling the insured to independent counsel. Consequently, the insurer’s duty to defend became a duty to reimburse reasonable attorney fees.

Fabyanske Westra Hart & Thomson v. W. Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals

Civil Contempt

Defendant appealed an order holding him in civil contempt for violating a default judgment entered against his company for unlawfully copying and selling proprietary databases. Although the company ceased operations, plaintiff alleged defendant continued the activity through another business. The U.S. District Court in Minnesota held defendant in contempt as the company’s sole owner, despite him not being individually subject to the default judgment. On appeal, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction because the contempt order was not a final decision and did not qualify under the collateral order doctrine, as claims against defendant individually remained pending. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Data Axle, Inc v. Nolting, 8th Circuit