{"id":345,"date":"2013-02-18T23:30:44","date_gmt":"2013-02-18T23:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fwhtlaw.com\/?post_type=briefing-papers&p=345"},"modified":"2022-12-12T21:29:44","modified_gmt":"2022-12-12T21:29:44","slug":"ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"Ramifications of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 1\/23\/2013 “Bolduc” Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"

Few cases in recent years have garnered as much attention or interest as the case of Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc, Inc.<\/em> In construction law circles, the case has become known simply as the\u201cBolduc\u201d<\/em> case. The reason the case is of so much interest is because it deals head on with a topic near and dear to every contractor and subcontractor in the state, namely the transfer of risk through the use of indemnity provisions and insurance.<\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span>Bolduc<\/em> case gained notoriety for the decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which held that a lower tier subcontractor, Bolduc, who was found by a jury to have <\/span>no fault<\/span> for an accident that caused damage to an underground pipe was nevertheless liable to the subcontractor, ECI, for the damages because of a relatively broad indemnity provision in the subcontract. Not only did the Court of Appeals hold Bolduc liable to ECI for damages, but the Court of Appeals also found Bolduc\u2019s insurer, Travelers, liable to ECI. Believing the Appellate Court\u2019s decision to be unfair, Bolduc and ECI appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On January 23, 2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court and provided lessons for those contractors and subcontractors interested in that important topic: risk transfer.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Background Facts<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The facts of <\/span>Bolduc<\/em> are relatively common. ECI, as subcontractor, and Bolduc, as a lower tier subcontractor, entered into a sub-subcontract whereby Bolduc was going to drive some sheet piles for ECI. The subcontract included an indemnity provision that provided: \u201c[Bolduc] agrees to protect, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless ECI and Owner, to the fullest extent permitted by law and to the extent of the insurance requirements below, from and against [claims] arising out of injury to any persons or damages to property caused or alleged to have been caused by any act or omission of [Bolduc] \u2026\u201d The indemnity promise was then followed by the typical requirement to obtain insurance covering the indemnity: \u201c[Bolduc] agrees to obtain, maintain and pay for such insurance coverage and endorsements as will insure the indemnity provisions\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bolduc\u2019s commercial general liability insurance policy included a blanket additional insured endorsement that provided coverage to ECI \u201cif, and only to the extent that, the injury or damage is caused by acts or omissions of you or your subcontractor in the performance of \u2018your work\u2019 to which the \u2018written contract requiring insurance\u2019 applies.\u201d The additional insured endorsement also provided that that no additional insured status would apply \u201cwith respect to the independent acts or omissions\u201d of the additional insured, here ECI.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

ECI identified locations on the site where it wanted Bolduc to drive the sheeting. ECI subsequently noticed damage to an underground pipe. ECI determined that Bolduc had driven the sheeting through the pipe. ECI and Bolduc each faulted the other. Bolduc refused to repair the damage. ECI repaired the damage at a cost of $235,339.ECI tendered to Travelers, but Travelers refused the tender.<\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

ECI Loses at Trial: Bolduc and Travelers are Not Liable<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

ECI then sued Bolduc alleging that Bolduc negligently drove the sheeting, caused the damage and was liable for the cost of repairing the damage. ECI claimed that Bolduc was liable to ECI citing the indemnity provision. ECI also sued Travelers directly for failing to honor the terms of Bolduc\u2019s insurance policy, which ECI claimed should afford ECI coverage for the claim as an additional insured under Bolduc\u2019s policy. The case was tried, and the jury found Bolduc not to have been negligent, and based on that result, thetrial court dismissed ECI\u2019s claims against Travelers and Bolduc entirely.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

ECI Wins on Appeal: Bolduc and Travelers are Liable<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

ECI appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed the trial court in a published opinion, <\/span>Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inv. v. L.H. Bolduc Co.<\/em>, 803 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. App. 2011), holding that Travelers and Bolduc each were liable to ECI, notwithstanding the fact that the jury found Bolduc not to have been negligent. The Appellate Court enforced the risk transfer provisions in the subcontract, and also found that Travelers was liable to ECI as an additional insured on Bolduc\u2019s policy.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

ECI Loses at the Supreme Court: Bolduc and Travelers are Not Liable<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Completing the circle, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the trial court. First, dealing with ECI\u2019s claim against Travelers, the Supreme Court determined that the additional insured endorsement afforded no additional insured status \u201cwith respect to the independent acts or omissions\u201d of ECI. Based in part on the existence of this language, and the fact that Bolduc was found not negligent to the jury, the Supreme Court found that ECI was not entitled to coverage as an <\/span>additional insured<\/em> on Bolduc\u2019s policy. The Court determined that the Traveler\u2019s policy provided coverage to ECI as an additional insured \u201conly in instances of ECI\u2019s vicarious liability for Bolduc\u2019s negligent act or omissions.\u201d (A11-1059, at 20) Because ECI was found not to have been negligent, there was no actionable conduct for which ECI could be vicariously liable and, thus, no coverage for ECI on the Traveler\u2019s policy.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court next analyzed ECI\u2019s contractual indemnity claims against Bolduc, and determined that the indemnity provision violated the Minnesota anti-indemnity statute, Minn. Stat. \u00a7 337.02, which renders unenforceable any indemnification agreement in a construction contract except to the extent \u201cthe underlying injury or damage is attributable to the negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission. . . of the\u201d subcontractor. The Supreme Court stated that \u00a7 337.02 \u201crenders <\/span>unenforceable<\/em> indemnification agreements in which a party assumes responsibility to pay for damages that are not caused by the party\u2019s own wrongful conduct.\u201d However, the Supreme Court also recognized that promises to purchase insurance for the benefit of others are <\/span>enforceable<\/em>under Minn. Stat. \u00a7 337.05, and that if a subcontractor fails to purchase insurance as specified in a contract, the subcontractor can become liable for failing to purchase that insurance.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court first found that Minn. Stat. \u00a7 337.02 barred ECI from enforcing the contractual indemnity agreement against Bolduc because a jury had found Bolduc not to have been negligent. The Supreme Court then analyzed whether ECI could nevertheless hold Bolduc responsible for failing to procure insurance for the indemnity. The Supreme Court held that the Traveler\u2019s policy did not provide insurance for ECI as an additional insured, so there could be no breach of contract on Bolduc\u2019s part with respect to ECI\u2019s status as an additional insured under the Traveler\u2019s policy. And, the Supreme Court determined that ECI had waived any claim that Bolduc should have purchased a policy different than the Traveler\u2019s policy purchased by Bolduc. Thus, ECI could not hold Bolduc responsible.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ramifications<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the Bolduc<\/em> case raises as many questions as it attempts to resolve. While its full ramifications will be worked out in subsequent litigation, there are some immediate lessons and reminders that construction industry participants can take from the decision, which are listed below.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Lesson 1: Read and Understand Indemnity Agreements<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This is a lesson all construction industry participants should know, but routinely ignore \u2013 at their peril. Whenever a contract contains an indemnity provision requiring a contractor to indemnify another in circumstances other than the contractor\u2019s own negligence or fault, the contractor needs to be on the look out for another provision that requires the contractor to purchase and carry specific insurance to \u201cinsure the indemnity\u201d provision. If the contractor does not have the required insurance, then it faces exposure on a claim that the contractor failed to purchase insurance to \u201cinsure the indemnity\u201d provision and, therefore, is liable to the fullest extent of the indemnity provision. Without insurance actually insuring the broad indemnity, the contractor who mistakenly promised that it had insurance could face ruinous liability.<\/span><\/p>\n

Any questions or concerns about the meaning or enforceability of an indemnity provision, whether it is appropriate or should be signed, should be directed to competent and knowledgeable professionals before the contract is executed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lesson 2: Read and Understand Insurance Specifications<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The contract at issue in Bolduc broadly specified the insurance that Bolduc was to procure to insure the indemnity provision. The issue of whether Travelers\u2019 policy satisfied the broad insurance provision in Bolduc\u2019s contract was not decided. Instead, the Supreme Court Minnesota passed on that issue by citing ECI\u2019s failure to raise in the trial court any claim that the Traveler\u2019s policy did not meet the contract specifications.<\/span><\/p>\n

Those seeking to enforce indemnity provisions should pay extra attention to the issue of whether the insurance procured by the contractor promising indemnity actually satisfies that contractor\u2019s obligation to procure insurance to \u201cinsure the indemnity.\u201d Contractors and subcontractors owing obligations to \u201cinsure the indemnity\u201d would be well advised to thoroughly review their insurance policies and their additional insured endorsements, to understand whether they have in fact procured sufficient insurance. Regrettably, the Bolduc<\/em> decision also raises the specter of more risk for insurance professionals. Industry participants will no doubt consult with their insurance advisors to determine whether their indemnity promises have been insured, but with the ever changing insurance decisions coming from Minnesota courts, it will be difficult for insurance professionals to predict whether the contractor\u2019s existing policies match the required contractual indemnity coverage.<\/span><\/p>\n

If the insurance is simply not reasonably available on the market, then the contractor should inform the other party, or make sure the contract contains a written exception, such as a strike through or exclusion, indicating that the insurance is not available in the market. The contractor should support a claim of non-availability with appropriate backup support, which may include correspondence from the contractor\u2019s insurance broker or pricing sheets indicating the additional, perhaps unreasonable, cost of obtaining the insurance to \u201cinsure the indemnity.\u201d If the contractor does these things, the contractor may not owe indemnity. See <\/em>Minn. Stat. \u00a7 337.05, subd. 3.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Lesson 3: Adopt Procedures for Confirming Compliance with Insurance Specifications<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

A standard procedure for discerning compliance with insurance specifications involves reviewing certificates of insurance, which typically have basic information regarding the insurance policy, and which name who the additional insureds are to be. Contractors owing obligations to procure insurance to \u201cinsure the indemnity\u201d should discuss their insurance with the party seeking such insurance so that both are satisfied that the proper insurance is in place. This confirmation could include, without limitation: (a) sharing policy language; and (b) negotiation of additional costs to secure any additional insurance beyond the contractor\u2019s standard insurance to comply with the language.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To reduce later arguments as to whether the contractor purchased the proper insurance, the contractor could provide a specific receipt and waiver form whereby the other party acknowledges that the insurance procured by the contractor satisfies the contract requirements. A more rigorous procedure in which the party entitled to indemnification specifically acknowledges in writing and confirms that the contractor\u2019s insurance meets the specification would reduce future disputes. Simply supplying a certificate of insurance showing insurance at variance from the specified coverage or the other party\u2019s failure to insist upon evidence of insurance will not excuse a contractor from complying with an agreement to insure. <\/span>See<\/em> Minn. Stat. \u00a7 337.05, subd. 5.<\/span><\/p>\n

Commonly, additional insured endorsements are used as part of a strategy to \u201cinsure the indemnity.\u201d Another strategy is to confirm the existence of contractual liability coverage in a general liability policy. With respect to additional insured endorsements, there are varied additional insured endorsements typically procured to aid in \u201cinsuring the indemnity\u201d, with many insurers having their own custom forms. These additional insured endorsements should be reviewed to determine whether they are appropriate for a particular contract. Purchasing the wrong additional insured endorsements could expose a contractor to a failure to procure insurance claim and the associated risk under a broad form indemnity provision. A common mistake is where the contractor\u2019s additional insured endorsement provides coverage to the additional insured for \u201congoing operations\u201d, but not \u201ccompleted operations.\u201d Construction contracts commonly require insurance for \u201ccompleted operations\u201d. Lack of the specified completed operations additional insured endorsements can expose the contractor to significant uninsured exposure and indemnity liability for failing to provide the proper insurance, especially in the case of construction defect claims that are discovered after substantial completion.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Lesson 4: Be Cognizant of Fault<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span>Bolduc<\/em> case is probably somewhat unique in that the sub-subcontractor, who was without question implicated in the claim, was determined by a jury not to have been negligent. As a practical matter, it is a very strange case indeed that a sub-subcontractor so clearly involved in the matter in question would be exonerated by a jury. This is another important lesson from Bolduc: jury results can be very unpredictable.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

If the subcontractor had been held to be minimally at fault, the entire analysis of Bolduc<\/em> likely would likely have changed and ECI would have obtained some, at least proportionate, recourse from Bolduc and Travelers. In the vast majority of construction related property damage cases, those implicated are typically found to have at least some minimal level of fault. It remains to be seen whether Bolduc<\/em> will have any ramifications on cases where the contractor owing indemnity obligations has at least minimal fault.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Lesson 5: Availability of Contractual Liability Coverage Still an Open Issue<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

What wasn\u2019t decided by Bolduc<\/em>, however, may prove to be the most important ramification for future claims. There were at least two routes by which ECI could have obtained coverage and attempted to enforce its indemnity from Bolduc.One way was for ECI to seek coverage as an additional insured, and the Court found this way blocked because the additional insured endorsement required some finding of fault on the part of Bolduc. The second way was for Bolduc to seek coverage for itself under its own CGL policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Notably, the parties did not litigate, and therefore the Supreme Court did not address, what coverage Bolduc had from its own carrier in regard to ECI\u2019s claim for indemnity. The contractual liability coverage in most CGL policies covers the contractual obligation of the insured when it assumes the tort liability of another. In other words, the CGL\u2019s contractual liability coverage covers indemnity obligations, even those indemnity obligations in which the contractor assumes the fault of another. Thus, Bolduc could have made a claim under its CGL policy that it owed ECI insurance coverage for its indemnity promise, even if Bolduc was not at fault. Most industry observers were hoping that the Supreme Court would decide if contractual liability coverage would extend to situations in which the contractor had absolutely no fault \u2013 only a contractual obligation to indemnify. But, that answer will have to await another case because this issue was not addressed by the parties in their underlying litigation. As a result, the Court unfortunately (but understandably) declined to address the issue.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Lesson 6:Review your Policies and Contracts<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Bolduc case shows that standard contract terms can have unintended consequences. Based on this new holding, contractors and subcontractors should review with professionals their standard contracts and their insurance programs to ensure that both are aligned.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This discussion is generalized in nature and should not be considered a substitute for professional advice.\u00a9 2013 FWH&T<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Few cases in recent years have garnered as much attention or interest as the case of Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc, Inc. In construction law circles, the case has become known simply\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":277,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-briefing-papers","category-mark-r-becker"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nRamifications of the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1\/23\/2013 "Bolduc" Decision - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramifications of the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1\/23\/2013 "Bolduc" Decision - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Few cases in recent years have garnered as much attention or interest as the case of Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc, Inc. In construction law circles, the case has become known simply\u2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2013-02-18T23:30:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-12-12T21:29:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/Becker_Mark_3082.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"550\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"275\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Eric Campbell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Eric Campbell\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/\",\"name\":\"Ramifications of the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1\/23\/2013 \\\"Bolduc\\\" Decision - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2013-02-18T23:30:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-12T21:29:44+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0f597b4f28d75111b5b0b3c5e7d4f66e\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramifications of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 1\/23\/2013 “Bolduc” Decision\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson\",\"description\":\"Twin Cities Law Firm | Business Attorneys\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0f597b4f28d75111b5b0b3c5e7d4f66e\",\"name\":\"Eric Campbell\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d32e03f714794dbae88ed41b83264cedb41953bb8092ae9e82bb752fd59d0686?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d32e03f714794dbae88ed41b83264cedb41953bb8092ae9e82bb752fd59d0686?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Eric Campbell\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/author\/ecampbellfwhtlaw-com\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramifications of the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1\/23\/2013 \"Bolduc\" Decision - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramifications of the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1\/23\/2013 \"Bolduc\" Decision - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson","og_description":"Few cases in recent years have garnered as much attention or interest as the case of Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc, Inc. In construction law circles, the case has become known simply\u2026","og_url":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/","og_site_name":"Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson","article_published_time":"2013-02-18T23:30:44+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-12-12T21:29:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":550,"height":275,"url":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/Becker_Mark_3082.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Eric Campbell","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Eric Campbell","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/","url":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/","name":"Ramifications of the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1\/23\/2013 \"Bolduc\" Decision - Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2013-02-18T23:30:44+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-12T21:29:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0f597b4f28d75111b5b0b3c5e7d4f66e"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/18\/ramifications-minnesota-supreme-courts-1232013-bolduc-decision\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramifications of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 1\/23\/2013 “Bolduc” Decision"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/","name":"Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson","description":"Twin Cities Law Firm | Business Attorneys","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0f597b4f28d75111b5b0b3c5e7d4f66e","name":"Eric Campbell","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d32e03f714794dbae88ed41b83264cedb41953bb8092ae9e82bb752fd59d0686?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d32e03f714794dbae88ed41b83264cedb41953bb8092ae9e82bb752fd59d0686?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Eric Campbell"},"url":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/author\/ecampbellfwhtlaw-com\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=345"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4424,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345\/revisions\/4424"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/277"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fwhtlaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}