Self-Employed and Injured? Why a Minnesota Jury's $250,000 Wage-Loss Award Was Erased

The Facts

What happened

In December 2017, Rose Kissner was injured in a car accident. She settled with the at-fault driver for $55,000 out of that driver's $100,000 liability limits, then sought $245,000 in underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits from her own insurer, Farm Bureau. When Farm Bureau denied the claim, she sued.

At trial, Kissner testified that she owned and ran a cleaning business, incorporated in 2000, and was its only employee. She said that before the accident she worked “probably 60 hours a week” — about eight to nine hours a day, seven days a week — and that she “th[ought]” she charged homeowners about $38 an hour and businesses about $42 an hour. After the accident, shoulder pain led her to cut back to roughly five hours a day, turn down work, and raise her rates so she could work less.

Critically, Kissner offered no financial exhibits to support the wage-loss claim. When she tried to introduce her tax records, the district court declined to receive them because they were not offered through a witness who could lay a proper foundation. The jury awarded her $75,000 in past pain and suffering, $250,000 in past wage loss, $25,000 in future pain and suffering, and $0 in future lost earning capacity.

Farm Bureau asked the court to set aside the wage-loss award as unsupported by the evidence.

The Decision

What the court held

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Worke, affirmed, upholding the Stearns County District Court. See Kissner v. Farm Bureau Financial Services, No. A25-1824 (Minn. Ct. App. July 13, 2026). This opinion is nonprecedential. It is not binding authority, although it may be cited for persuasive value as permitted by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

The court agreed that the district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law reducing the $250,000 wage-loss award to zero. A plaintiff must “establish a reasonable basis for approximating a loss,” and damages “cannot be speculative, remote, or conjectural.” Here, the court explained, the record left too many gaps for a jury to calculate wage loss without guessing:

• Kissner did not say how many homes or businesses she actually cleaned.
• She testified to hourly rates, but not that she was actually paid for everything she charged.
• She did not testify to her business expenses.
• She did not explain how or when her hours were reduced over the years between the accident and trial.
• Although her business was incorporated and she was its only employee, she never stated how much the business paid her.

Because the jury would have had to speculate to reach a wage-loss figure, erasing that award was proper.

There is a part of the decision that is easy to miss. Even though the largest piece of the verdict disappeared, Kissner was not left with nothing. The remaining, non-wage-loss damages totaled $100,000 — exactly equal to the at-fault driver's liability limit. That raised a question: had she shown damages in excess of the underlying coverage, which is what UIM benefits are meant to fill?

The court said yes. Under Minnesota law, prejudgment (pre-award) interest is treated as an element of compensatory damages. Adding the pre-award interest (here, $347.67) pushed her total damages just over the $100,000 liability limit. That was enough to establish UIM coverage and to support the district court's determination that Kissner — not Farm Bureau — was the prevailing party entitled to costs and disbursements, even though the insurer had succeeded in wiping out the wage-loss award.

Practical Takeaways

What this means for Minnesota injury claims

Practical points that arise directly from this opinion:

• For the self-employed, testimony alone is often not enough. Proving lost income usually calls for records — tax returns, invoices, profit-and-loss statements, appointment or job logs — introduced through a witness who can lay a foundation for them.
• Business income is not the same as personal wages. What the business took in does not automatically show what the owner paid herself. Documenting the owner's actual compensation can matter.
• Get exhibits admitted properly. Even helpful documents may be excluded if no witness establishes the necessary foundation. Planning how each exhibit will get into evidence is part of building the claim.
• Small margins can still decide UIM eligibility. Prejudgment interest counts as damages, and even a few hundred dollars over the underlying limit can be enough to trigger UIM coverage and prevailing-party status.

Related reading from Andrade Law:

• how injury damages are documented and proven after a crash
• how coverage disputes with your own carrier are evaluated and pursued
• our case note on Higgins v. Brown, where a fully supported damages record carried a verdict past the insurer's appeal

Case Information

Case information