Minnesota
Medical Malpractice Laws in Minnesota (2026): Deadlines & Caps
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Minnesota stands out among states for what it does not have: there is no cap on compensatory damages in a medical malpractice case against a private provider, including pain and suffering. Claims against government-owned or government-operated providers are a separate track, and those are capped by statute. What Minnesota does require is strict expert support, in the form of an affidavit of expert review filed with the lawsuit and a later affidavit identifying the experts. A claim generally must be filed within 4 years of when the cause of action accrued. The figures and rules below come from the Minnesota Statutes. This page is general legal information, not legal advice.
Statute of Limitations in Minnesota
Under Minn. Stat. 541.076(b), an action against a health care provider alleging malpractice, error, mistake, or failure to cure, whether based on contract or tort, must be commenced within 4 years from the date the cause of action accrued. The 4-year period is longer than many states allow, but the accrual rule that triggers it is what often controls a case.
Minnesota does not apply a broad discovery rule. Under Minnesota case law, a malpractice cause of action generally accrues when the physician's treatment for the particular condition ends or when some compensable damage occurs, not when the patient later realizes the care may have been negligent.
Because accrual can predate a patient's awareness of harm, it is possible to lose a claim even though four years have not passed since the patient learned of the injury. Early legal review is important for this reason. This 4-year rule applies to adult patients; a minor's deadline is different (see Deadlines for Minors, below).
Statute of Repose
Minnesota does not have a separate, longer statute of repose for medical malpractice in the way some states do. The 4-year limitations period in Minn. Stat. 541.076, measured from accrual, functions as the controlling outer deadline for most claims.
Because the limitations clock is tied to accrual rather than discovery, the timing analysis can be technical. An attorney can evaluate when a specific claim accrued under Minnesota precedent.
Deadlines for Minors
Minnesota tolls the malpractice deadline differently when the patient is a minor. Under Minn. Stat. 541.15(a)(1) and (b), being under the age of 18 is a disability that suspends the running of the 4-year limitations period in Minn. Stat. 541.076 for as long as the child remains a minor. That suspension is not unlimited: the statute caps it at 7 years, and it also cannot extend the deadline more than 1 year past the date the disability ends, meaning the child's 18th birthday. Whichever of those two limits is reached first ends the suspension.
In practice, this means a minor's actual filing deadline can be longer than 4 years from accrual, but it is not automatically pushed all the way out to the child's 18th birthday either. How the caps apply depends on the child's age when the malpractice occurred, so parents and guardians should have a Minnesota attorney calculate the specific deadline rather than assuming either the standard 4-year rule or a full extension to adulthood.
Damage Caps in Minnesota
Minnesota does not cap compensatory damages in medical malpractice cases against private providers. There is no statutory limit on noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering, and no limit on economic damages such as medical bills and lost income. Minnesota also has no patient compensation fund that ceilings recovery.
This places Minnesota among the states where a jury's compensatory award against a private defendant is not statutorily reduced to a fixed cap. Our Minnesota settlement calculator works the same way, building a rough range from your own injury and expense numbers rather than a statutory ceiling. Minnesota does regulate punitive damages through procedural rules, but punitive damages are separate from the compensatory damages that make up most malpractice recoveries.
The absence of a cap does not mean awards are unlimited in practice. Recovery still depends on the evidence of injury, causation, and actual losses proven at trial.
Claims Against Government Providers Are Capped
The no-cap rule describes claims against private hospitals and clinicians. If the care was delivered by a government-owned or government-operated provider, such as a county hospital, a city clinic, or a public health authority, Minnesota's tort claims statutes impose a hard ceiling instead.
Minn. Stat. 466.01, subd. 1 defines a municipality to include any city, any county, a town, a public authority, and a public corporation. For claims arising on or after July 1, 2009, Minn. Stat. 466.04, subd. 1 limits liability to $500,000 for a wrongful death claim, $500,000 to any claimant in any other case, and $1,500,000 for all claims arising out of a single occurrence. A claim against the state or a state employee acting within the scope of employment carries the same $500,000 and $1,500,000 limits under Minn. Stat. 3.736, subd. 4.
These claims also carry a notice deadline that has no counterpart in a private malpractice case. Notice of the claim must be presented within 180 days after the alleged loss or injury is discovered, to the municipality's governing body under Minn. Stat. 466.05, subd. 1 or to the attorney general under Minn. Stat. 3.736, subd. 5. Minn. Stat. 466.05, subd. 2 allows one year for a wrongful death claim against a municipality. If a public provider may be involved, ask a Minnesota medical malpractice lawyer for a free consultation on the 180-day notice deadline now (attorney advertising).
Affidavit of Expert Review
Minnesota's central screening mechanism is the expert affidavit requirement in Minn. Stat. 145.682. In cases where expert testimony is needed to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must serve two affidavits.
The first, an affidavit of expert review, is served with the summons and complaint. The plaintiff's attorney certifies that the facts have been reviewed with a qualified expert who is of the opinion that one or more defendants deviated from the applicable standard of care and thereby caused injury. If the limitations deadline prevents earlier review, the statute allows this affidavit to be served within 90 days instead.
The second affidavit identifies each expert the plaintiff expects to call, the substance of their opinions, and the grounds for those opinions. It must be served within 180 days after discovery begins under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Consequences of Noncompliance
The expert affidavit requirement has teeth. Under Minn. Stat. 145.682, failure to comply with the affidavit requirements results, upon motion, in mandatory dismissal with prejudice of each cause of action that requires expert testimony.
Courts generally must allow a period to correct deficiencies before dismissal becomes final, but the safest course is to line up qualified expert support before filing. This is one reason Minnesota malpractice cases are typically not filed without expert consultation.
Standard of Care and Who May Be Liable
Liability in a Minnesota malpractice case turns on whether a health care provider deviated from the accepted standard of care and caused the patient's injury. Potentially liable parties can include physicians, surgeons, dentists, nurses, other licensed professionals, hospitals, and treatment facilities, as reflected in the broad definition of health care provider in Minn. Stat. 541.076.
Expert testimony is generally required to establish the standard of care and causation, which is why the affidavit requirements are so central to Minnesota practice.
Comparative Negligence
Minnesota follows a modified comparative fault rule under Minn. Stat. 604.01. A plaintiff may recover only if the plaintiff's fault is not greater than the fault of the parties against whom recovery is sought, and any award is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
In practice, this means a patient who is found 50 percent or less at fault can still recover, with the award reduced accordingly, while a patient found more than 50 percent at fault is barred from recovery.
Wrongful Death Medical Malpractice
When malpractice causes death, the claim proceeds under Minnesota's wrongful death statute, Minn. Stat. 573.02, brought by a court-appointed trustee for the next of kin. A wrongful death action generally must be commenced within 3 years of the death, and not later than the limit that applies to the underlying claim.
Because the wrongful death timeline interacts with the underlying malpractice accrual rules, families should confirm the controlling deadline early rather than assuming a single fixed period.
Evaluating and Preserving a Potential Claim
If you suspect malpractice, request complete medical records promptly and document what happened. Minnesota's accrual-based deadline and strict expert affidavit rules mean that gathering qualified expert support early can be decisive.
Most medical malpractice attorneys offer a free initial consultation and work on a contingency fee, meaning they are paid a percentage only if the case recovers money. No attorney can guarantee an outcome or a dollar figure, and every case depends on its specific facts and medical evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline to sue for medical malpractice in Minnesota?
Generally 4 years from the date the cause of action accrued (Minn. Stat. 541.076(b)). Minnesota uses an accrual rule rather than a broad discovery rule, so the clock can start when treatment for the condition ends or some damage occurs, even before you realize malpractice may have happened. Confirm your specific deadline with a licensed Minnesota attorney.
Does Minnesota cap medical malpractice damages?
Not for claims against private providers. Minnesota has no statutory cap on compensatory damages in a malpractice case against a private hospital or clinician, and there is no patient compensation fund ceiling. Claims against public providers are capped: for claims arising on or after July 1, 2009, Minn. Stat. 466.04, subd. 1 limits a claim against a city, county, or other municipality to $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 for all claims arising out of a single occurrence, and Minn. Stat. 3.736, subd. 4 applies the same limits to claims against the state.
Do I need an expert affidavit in Minnesota?
Yes. Under Minn. Stat. 145.682 you must serve an affidavit of expert review with the complaint and a second affidavit identifying your experts within 180 days after discovery begins. Failing to comply can lead to mandatory dismissal with prejudice.
Is there a pre-suit notice requirement in Minnesota?
Not for a claim against a private provider. Minnesota does not require a separate notice of intent to sue or a pre-suit screening panel, and the principal pre-suit hurdle is the affidavit of expert review served with the complaint under Minn. Stat. 145.682. A claim against a government provider is different: notice must be presented within 180 days after the loss or injury is discovered under Minn. Stat. 466.05, subd. 1 (municipalities) or Minn. Stat. 3.736, subd. 5 (the state), with one year allowed for a wrongful death claim against a municipality.
How much is a Minnesota medical malpractice case worth?
There is no set value, and because Minnesota does not cap damages against private providers, recovery there is determined by the injuries, losses, and evidence proven rather than a statutory limit. A claim against a government-owned or government-operated provider is subject to the tort claims caps of $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence. Awards still depend entirely on proof of standard-of-care breach, causation, and actual damages. No attorney can promise a particular outcome or amount.
What if I was partly at fault for my own injury?
Minnesota uses modified comparative fault under Minn. Stat. 604.01. You can recover only if your fault is not greater than the defendants' fault, and your award is reduced by your percentage of fault.
How long do families have to file a wrongful death malpractice claim in Minnesota?
A wrongful death action under Minn. Stat. 573.02 generally must be commenced within 3 years of the death and no later than the deadline that would apply to the underlying claim. A court-appointed trustee brings the action for the next of kin.
Why does Minnesota use accrual instead of a discovery rule?
Minnesota courts measure the 4-year limitations period from when the cause of action accrued, which is generally when treatment for the condition ends or compensable damage occurs. This is narrower than a pure discovery rule, so the deadline can pass before a patient connects the harm to negligent care. Foreign-object claims are treated differently and turn on discovery.
Is there a different deadline if the patient was a minor?
Yes. Under Minn. Stat. 541.15(b), the 4-year deadline in Minn. Stat. 541.076 is suspended while the patient is under 18, but the suspension cannot last more than 7 years or extend the deadline more than 1 year past the child's 18th birthday, whichever limit is reached first. Because the two caps interact in a fact-specific way, have a Minnesota attorney calculate the actual deadline for an injured minor.
Updates
Clarified that Minnesota's no-damage-cap rule applies to private providers only, and added the $500,000 per-claimant and $1,500,000 per-occurrence tort claims caps and notice-of-claim deadlines that apply to claims against government-owned or government-operated providers.
Added coverage of Minnesota's minor-tolling rule (Minn. Stat. 541.15(b)): the 4-year malpractice deadline is suspended while a patient is under 18, capped at 7 years or 1 year past the child's 18th birthday, whichever comes first.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 541: LIMITATION OF TIME, COMMENCING ACTIONS
§ 541.076HEALTH CARE PROVIDER ACTIONSIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) For purposes of this section, "health care provider" means a physician, surgeon, dentist, occupational therapist, other health care professionals as defined in section 145.61, hospital, or treatment facility. (b) An action by a patient or former patient against a health care provider alleging malpractice, error, mistake, or failure to cure, whether based on a contract or tort, must be commenced within four years from the date the cause of action accrued. (c) A counterclaim may be pleaded as a defense to any action for services brought by a health care provider after the limitations described in this section, notwithstanding it is barred by the provisions of this chapter, if the counterclaim belonged to the party pleading it at the time it became barred and was not barred at the time the claim sued on originated, but no judgment on the counterclaim except for costs can be rendered in favor of the party so pleading it.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 25 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd. (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2002, 645 N.W.2d 413)“…ccrued. The court of appeals affirmed. Because we hold that Minn.Stat. § 541.076 (2000) applies retroactively to revive…”
- Jennifer L. DeCook, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. Olmsted Medical Center, Inc., Brenda J. Hanson, R.N., and Darlene M. Pratt, R.N., Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Kenneth M. Palmer, M.D., Jack F. Perrone, M.D., Kimberly McKeon, M.D., and Ashley Morrow, R.N. (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2016, 875 N.W.2d 263)“…e of limitations for medical malpractice claims is 4 years. Minn.Stat. § 541.076(b) (2014). The record does not show, no…”
- Molloy v. Meier (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2003, 660 N.W.2d 444)“…our-year limitations period for medical-malpractice claims. Minn.Stat. § 541.076(b) *454 (2002). The statute was made…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type, Minnesota Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines
§ 541.15PERIODS OF DISABILITY NOT COUNTEDIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), any of the following grounds of disability, existing at the time when a cause of action accrued or arising anytime during the period of limitation, shall suspend the running of the period of limitation until the same is removed; provided that such period, except in the case of infancy, shall not be extended for more than five years, nor in any case for more than one year after the disability ceases: (1) that the plaintiff is within the age of 18 years; (2) the plaintiff's insanity; (3) is an alien and the subject or citizen of a country at war with the United States; (4) when the beginning of the action is stayed by injunction or by statutory prohibition. If two or more disabilities shall coexist, the suspension shall continue until all are removed. (b) In actions alleging malpractice, error, mistake, or failure to cure, whether based on contract or tort, against a health care provider, the ground of disability specified in paragraph (a), clause (1), suspends the period of limitation until the disability is removed. The suspension may not be extended for more than seven years, or for more than one year after the disability ceases.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 43 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- W.J.L. v. Bugge (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1998, 573 N.W.2d 677)“…l one year after the plaintiff reaches the age of majority. Minn.Stat. § 541.15(a)(1) (1996). Notwithstanding Minn.Stat…”
- D.M.S. v. Barber (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2002, 645 N.W.2d 383)“…N.W. 176, 177 (1941). Under the minority tolling statute, Minn.Stat. § 541.15(a)(1) (2000), when a negligence *387…”
- Whitener Ex Rel. Miller v. Dahl (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2001, 625 N.W.2d 827)“…ounger than age 18 and under the minority-tolling statute, Minn. Stat. § 541.15 (a)(1) (2000), the limitations provisio…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 145: PUBLIC HEALTH PROVISIONS
§ 145.682CERTIFICATION OF EXPERT REVIEW; AFFIDAVITIn force
Subdivision 1. Definition. For purposes of this section, "health care provider" means a physician, surgeon, dentist, or other health care professional or hospital, including all persons or entities providing health care as defined in section 145.61, subdivisions 2 and 4, or a certified health care professional employed by or providing services as an independent contractor in a hospital. Subd. 2. Requirement. In an action alleging malpractice, error, mistake, or failure to cure, whether based on contract or tort, against a health care provider which includes a cause of action as to which expert testimony is necessary to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must: (1) unless otherwise provided in subdivision 3, clause (2), serve upon defendant with the summons and complaint an affidavit as provided in subdivision 3; and (2) serve upon defendant within 180 days after commencement of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 26.04(a) an affidavit as provided by subdivision 4. Subd. 3. Affidavit of expert review.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 120 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1990, 457 N.W.2d 188)“…iled to set out, with the degree of specificity required by Minn.Stat. § 145.682, subd. 4 (1988), the proposed testimony…”
- Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2007, 732 N.W.2d 209)“…viewing a district court's dismissal of a claim pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 145.682 (2006)). But where a question of law is…”
- Lindberg v. Health Partners, Inc. (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1999, 599 N.W.2d 572)“…s of the majority opinion. I do not find the application of Minn.Stat. § 145.682 “uncomplicated and unambiguous” as does…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 604: CIVIL LIABILITY
§ 604.01COMPARATIVE FAULT; EFFECTIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Scope of application. Contributory fault does not bar recovery in an action by any person or the person's legal representative to recover damages for fault resulting in death, in injury to person or property, or in economic loss, if the contributory fault was not greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the person recovering. The court may, and when requested by any party shall, direct the jury to find separate special verdicts determining the amount of damages and the percentage of fault attributable to each party and the court shall then reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the person recovering. Subd. 1a. Fault. "Fault" includes acts or omissions that are in any measure negligent or reckless toward the person or property of the actor or others, or that subject a person to strict tort liability.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-10 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 141 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Minnesota courts map Sec. 604.01 claim by claim: Florenzano v. Olson (1986) held its comparative responsibility principles reach negligent misrepresentation but not intentional fraud, and Lesmeister v. Dilly (1983) read it as not meant to apply generally to contract cases, though unreasonable failure to mitigate is apportionable fault.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Florenzano v. Olson (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1986, 387 N.W.2d 168)✓An insurance agent told a couple the wife should withdraw entirely from Social Security, and she later lost disability benefits; the court treated the claim as negligent misrepresentation and held comparative responsibility applies, so her 62.5 percent fault barred recovery.
- Lesmeister v. Dilly (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1983, 330 N.W.2d 95)✓A farmer's grain building was delivered late and leaked, spoiling stored corn; the court held the dispute was contractual, so fault could not be apportioned on those claims, but treated his unreasonable failure to mitigate as statutory fault, cutting damages 42.11 percent.
- Moorhead Economic Development Authority v. Anda (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2010, 789 N.W.2d 860)✓A city authority condemned Anda's property, found fuel oil contamination, and billed him for the cleanup; the court held refusing a comparative fault instruction was error, since evidence suggested the developer unreasonably failed to mitigate, and ordered a new damages trial.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Minnesota Car Accident Laws: No-Fault, PIP, and Your Claim, Minnesota Motorcycle Accident Laws (2026): Deadlines
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 573: PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS; ACTIONS
§ 573.02ACTION FOR DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT; SURVIVAL OF ACTIONSIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Death action. When death is caused by the wrongful act or omission of any person or corporation, the trustee appointed as provided in subdivision 3 may maintain an action therefor if the decedent might have maintained an action, had the decedent lived, for an injury caused by the wrongful act or omission. An action to recover damages for a death caused by the alleged professional negligence of a physician, surgeon, dentist, hospital or sanitarium, or an employee of a physician, surgeon, dentist, hospital or sanitarium shall be commenced within three years of the date of death, but in no event shall be commenced beyond the time set forth in section 541.076. An action to recover damages for a death caused by an intentional act constituting murder may be commenced at any time after the death of the decedent. Any other action under this section may be commenced within three years after the date of death provided that the action must be commenced within six years after the act or omission.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 187 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1988, 420 N.W.2d 608)“…gful death or general survival statutes. Defendant contends Minn.Stat. § 573.02 (1986) unambiguously creates a right pe…”
- State v. Soto (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1985, 378 N.W.2d 625)“…Verkennes court took some pains to limit its holding to Minn.Stat. § 573.02. The court's opinion in Verkennes…”
- DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1982, 319 N.W.2d 45)“…tion period prescribed by the Minnesota Wrongful Death Act, Minn.Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1 (1976). The other defendants j…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Punitive Damages Laws: Standard, Pleading and Caps (2026), Truck Accident Laws in Minnesota (2026): Deadlines & Liability
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 3: LEGISLATURE
§ 3.736TORT CLAIMSIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Subdivision 1. General rule. The state will pay compensation for injury to or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by an act or omission of an employee of the state while acting within the scope of office or employment or a peace officer who is not acting on behalf of a private employer and who is acting in good faith under section 629.40, subdivision 4, under circumstances where the state, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function. Nothing in this section waives the defense of judicial, quasi-judicial, or legislative immunity except to the extent provided in subdivision 8. Subd. 2. Procedure. Claims of various kinds shall be considered and paid only in accordance with the statutory procedures provided. If there is no other applicable statute, a claim shall be brought under this section as a civil action in the courts of the state. Subd. 3. Exclusions.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 139 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rico v. State (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1991, 472 N.W.2d 100)“…ionary function exception in the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minn.Stat. § 3.736, subd. 3(b) (1990), and that Gregg is e…”
- Cairl v. State (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1982, 323 N.W.2d 20)“…rformance, or nonperformance, of a discretionary act. See Minn.Stat. § 3.736, subd. 3(b) (1980) and Minn.Stat. § 4…”
- Nusbaum v. County of Blue Earth (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1988, 422 N.W.2d 713)“…nity under the discretionary function exception pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 3.736, subd. 3(b) (1986). The court of appeal…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466: TORT LIABILITY, POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
§ 466.01DEFINITIONSIn force
Subdivision 1. Municipality. For the purposes of sections 466.01 to 466.15, "municipality" means any city, whether organized under home rule charter or otherwise, any county, town, public authority, public corporation, nonprofit firefighting corporation that has associated with it a relief association as defined in section 424A.001, subdivision 4, special district, school district, however organized, county agricultural society organized pursuant to chapter 38, joint powers board or organization created under section 471.59 or other statute, public library, regional public library system, multicounty multitype library system, the following local collaboratives whose plans have been approved by the Children's Cabinet: family services collaboratives established under section 142D.15, children's mental health collaboratives established under sections 245.491 to 245.495, or a collaborative established by the merger of a children's mental health collaborative and a family services collaborative, other political subdivision, community action agency, or a limited partnership in which a community action agency is the sole general partner. Subd. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 52 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Andrade v. Ellefson (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1986, 391 N.W.2d 836)“…ent is dis *845 cussed in the municipal tort liability act, Minn.Stat. § 466.01-15 (1984). The statute states: For th…”
- Sota Foods, Inc. v. Larson-Peterson & Associates, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1993, 497 N.W.2d 276)“…but does not include an independent contractor. Minn.Stat. § 466.01, subd. 6 (1990) (emphasis added).…”
- Bernthal v. City of St. Paul (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1985, 376 N.W.2d 422)“…er the worker's compensation laws. 2 . Minn.Stat. § 466.01, subd. 1 (1984), defines a municipality…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 466.04MAXIMUM LIABILITYIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Limits; punitive damages. (a) Liability of any municipality on any claim within the scope of sections 466.01 to 466.15 shall not exceed: (1) $300,000 when the claim is one for death by wrongful act or omission and $300,000 to any claimant in any other case, for claims arising before January 1, 2008; (2) $400,000 when the claim is one for death by wrongful act or omission and $400,000 to any claimant in any other case, for claims arising on or after January 1, 2008, and before July 1, 2009; (3) $500,000 when the claim is one for death by wrongful act or omission and $500,000 to any claimant in any other case, for claims arising on or after July 1, 2009; (4) $750,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence, for claims arising on or after January 1, 1998, and before January 1, 2000; (5) $1,000,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence, for claims arising on or after January 1, 2000, and before January 1, 2008; (6) $1,200,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence, for claims arising on or after January 1, 2008, and before July 1, 2009; (7) $1,500,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 44 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Snyder v. City of Minneapolis (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1989, 441 N.W.2d 781)“…us but imposed a $200,000 cap on the city’s liability under Minn.Stat. § 466.04 (1986) and affirmed denial of the § 198…”
- Johnson v. Washington County (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1994, 518 N.W.2d 594)“…rove his case. The county also argued that if it was liable Minn.Stat. § 466.04 (1992) limited its liability to $200,-0…”
- Wilson v. City of Eagan (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1980, 297 N.W.2d 146)“…ppeal belie the humble origins of the case: (1) Does Minn.Stat. § 466.04, subd. la (1978) preclude an award of p…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 466.05NOTICE OF CLAIMIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Notice required. Except as provided in subdivision 2, every person, whether plaintiff, defendant or third-party plaintiff or defendant, who claims damages from any municipality or municipal employee acting within the scope of employment for or on account of any loss or injury within the scope of section 466.02 shall cause to be presented to the governing body of the municipality within 180 days after the alleged loss or injury is discovered a notice stating the time, place and circumstances thereof, the names of the municipal employees known to be involved, and the amount of compensation or other relief demanded. Actual notice of sufficient facts to reasonably put the governing body of the municipality or its insurer on notice of a possible claim shall be construed to comply with the notice requirements of this section. Failure to state the amount of compensation or other relief demanded does not invalidate the notice; but in such case, the claimant shall furnish full information regarding the nature and extent of the injuries and damages within 15 days after demand by the municipality.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Naylor v. Minnesota Daily (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1984, 342 N.W.2d 632)“…ions provision. It should be made clear that the quoting of Minn.Stat. § 466.05 and other “notice” provisions, or the c…”
- Glassman v. Miller (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1984, 356 N.W.2d 655)“…id not serve a notice of claim on the county as provided by Minn.Stat. § 466.05 (1982). The trial court granted the cou…”
- St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1993, 496 N.W.2d 812)“…er to characterize the notice of claim required pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 466.05, subd. 1 (1990) as a nonpublic document…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Sources and References
- Minn. Stat. 541.076 - 4-year limitations period for actions against health care providers(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. 145.682 - Certification of expert review; affidavit requirements and mandatory dismissal for noncompliance(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. 604.01 - Modified comparative fault (recovery barred if plaintiff's fault is greater than defendants')(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. 573.02 - Wrongful death action; 3-year deadline and trustee for next of kin(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. 466.04 - Municipal tort liability limits ($500,000 per claimant, $1,500,000 per occurrence for claims arising on or after July 1, 2009)(revisor.mn.gov)
- Minn. Stat. 3.736 - State tort claims; $500,000 / $1,500,000 liability limits (subd. 4) and 180-day notice to the attorney general (subd. 5)(revisor.mn.gov)
- Minn. Stat. 466.01, subd. 1 - Definition of municipality (any city, any county, town, public authority, public corporation)(revisor.mn.gov)
- Minn. Stat. 466.05 - Notice of claim against a municipality; 180 days after discovery, one year for wrongful death(revisor.mn.gov)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.