Nelson v. American Modern Insurance Group

Background

Alexander Nelson and The Alexander Nelson Trust alleged that American Modern Insurance Group, Inc. and NCM Insurance Agency, LLC violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and the Federal Rehabilitation Act. Nelson sought insurance coverage for occasional use of a classic car and asked the defendants to waive a requirement that the policyholder own a car for daily use. He alleged that his disability prevents him from using a car regularly, so he does not own one, and that the defendants’ refusal to waive the requirement was disability discrimination.

Motion for counsel

Nelson asked the court to appoint a lawyer for him and the Trust. He said the Trust’s rules assign general management to trustees, that the trustees might join the lawsuit if the Trust had a licensed lawyer, and that his disabilities could cause delays and other problems. He also reported that an attorney at the Disability Law Center might represent the plaintiffs if the court ordered that representation.

The court treated the request under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which allows a court to request counsel for an indigent person with a non-frivolous claim when counsel would benefit the person and the court. The court explained that this statute applies only to natural persons and does not give indigent civil litigants an automatic right to appointed counsel. The court also recognized that the Americans with Disabilities Act and Minnesota Human Rights Act allow a court to appoint counsel in circumstances the court considers just.

Analysis and ruling

The court held that it could not order a lawyer to represent an indigent civil litigant under Section 1915(e). Because the Trust is not a natural person, the court could not require counsel to represent it under that statute, assuming for purposes of the motion that the Trust could be sued. The court did not decide whether the Trust could be sued; the defendants’ motions raising that issue were pending before the district judge.

As to Nelson personally, the court found that the case was factually and legally straightforward because it involved negotiations over a single automobile insurance quote and an allegation that the defendants’ refusal to modify the policy requirements was discriminatory. The court noted that Nelson had explained his positions to opposing counsel and the court, cited case law, and had not shown that his disability prevented him from investigating or pursuing the claim. The court therefore did not find it just to appoint counsel under either the federal disability law or the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Judge John F. Docherty ordered that Nelson’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The order addressed only the request for appointed counsel and did not resolve the underlying discrimination claims or the pending arguments about whether the Trust could sue.