Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London

Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that respondent’s claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations, I respectfully dissent. In my opinion the bad faith claim against appellant was an asset which was omitted from the winding up of the corporation and could be, and was, validly assigned to respondent. To hold otherwise would allow an insurer who acted in bad faith to protect itself by using its insured corporation’s dissolution as a weapon to escape liability.

Minn. Stat. § 301.56 (1980) (repealed 1981) states in part that:

The title to any assets omitted from the…