Nelson v. American Modern Insurance Group

Background

Alexander Nelson, representing himself, sued American Modern Insurance Group, Inc. and NCM Insurance Agency, LLC. NCM sells classic-vehicle insurance policies issued by American Modern. Nelson requested a quote but was told that the policy required the owner of an insured classic vehicle also to own and operate a daily-use vehicle. Nelson said that a disability prevented him from regularly operating a vehicle and asked for an accommodation allowing him to obtain the classic-vehicle policy without owning and operating a daily-use vehicle. Neither company issued him the policy.

Nelson’s Second Amended Complaint alleged disability discrimination under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). He sought only monetary damages. American Modern moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Court’s analysis

ADA claim. The court held that Title III of the ADA allows a private plaintiff to seek injunctive relief but does not allow a private action seeking monetary damages. Because Nelson sought only money damages, the court granted summary judgment to American Modern on the ADA claim.

Rehabilitation Act claim. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. The court held that Nelson presented no evidence that American Modern, a private insurance business, received federal funding. The court therefore granted summary judgment to American Modern on the Rehabilitation Act claim.

MHRA claim. The court reached the merits of Nelson’s MHRA disability-discrimination claim because the MHRA permits private actions for monetary damages. For purposes of the motion, the court assumed without deciding that Nelson had established an initial case of discrimination. It then held that American Modern had provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for requiring a daily-use vehicle: classic-vehicle policies were priced based on the assumption that the classic vehicle was not the driver’s primary or only vehicle, and insuring a driver with only a classic vehicle presented greater financial risk.

The burden then shifted back to Nelson to show that this explanation was a pretext, meaning a false reason concealing discrimination. The court held that Nelson offered no evidence that the requirement disproportionately affected comparable people with disabilities, no discriminatory comments from decisionmakers, and no evidence beyond his own belief that American Modern had discriminated against him. The court therefore granted summary judgment to American Modern on the MHRA claim.

Disposition

Judge Provinzino ordered that American Modern’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED and that Nelson’s Second Amended Complaint was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Nelson and NCM had stipulated to NCM’s dismissal with prejudice before NCM’s summary-judgment motion was heard, so the court denied NCM’s motion for summary judgment as moot. The court also stated that requests concerning exclusion of evidence and dismissal as a discovery sanction were moot, while the request for attorneys’ fees was left for Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty to reconsider.