It happened so fast Jamie Krueger had no time to react.

He was driving on Highway 23 near Marshall, Minnesota on an overcast day last June. A State Patrol trooper – who was just months into the job – was driving directly in front of him.

Without any warning, lights or sirens, the trooper pulled a U-turn to try to stop a suspected speeding driver and immediately side-swiped Krueger on the highway.

Despite the trooper crashing into Krueger, the state denied a claim that would have reimbursed his $1,000 deductible. 

In a letter sent to Krueger last month, the Minnesota Department of Administration explained the trooper’s actions were covered by “immunity,” a long-standing legal principle. But legal experts who spoke with 5 INVESTIGATES say they’re concerned the state is using this tactic to avoid accountability.

The crash 

Dash camera video shows the moment of impact. Krueger’s car swerved to the side of the road as he tried to regain control.

“I saw two cops get out of the car. I was like, ‘Oh my God, What is going on here?’” he said. “I felt like the Twilight Zone is happening.”

Krueger’s 17-year-old daughter, Genevieve, was in the front passenger seat and took the brunt of the impact.

“It was not fun. It was a very scary feeling,” she said.

The Kruegers were checked out at a local hospital for minor injuries and the car was deemed a total loss.

While his insurance handled the mangled car, Krueger was still on the hook to pay his $1,000 deductible, despite records showing he played no role in causing the crash.

“I’m not looking for a lottery ticket here. I’m looking for accountability. I’m looking for the right thing to be done,” he said.

The explanation

Body and dash camera video of the crash captured the trooper’s explanation to Krueger of what happened when the crash occurred. 

“He was turning around the car and didn’t see you,” the senior trooper said, referring to the trooper in training.

That last statement — “didn’t see you” — sounded to Krueger like an admission of fault. In addition, the accident report lists the trooper’s “improper turn or merge” as a contributing factor to the crash.

After months of asking for the money back, the state eventually sent the letter saying that “we are unable to consider your claim for payment” because “immunity applies.”

That official immunity is a shield from liability for government workers, explained Alicia Granse, an attorney with the ACLU in Minnesota. 

“We see that a lot with immunity cases,” she said. “It’s very difficult to hold government agents accountable in any sphere.

Official immunity and qualified immunity have been priorities for the ACLU in recent years as they try to limit the scope of how often the government uses it as a defense.

Granse says she’s never seen it used to deny a deductible claim.

“We don’t want to penalize, necessarily, government agents who make a mistake, but they should at least acknowledge the harm and try to make things right,” she said.

The response 

The Minnesota Department of Administration, which handles these issues, declined an on-camera interview, saying it does not comment on the details of claims or litigation.

The State Patrol also denied to comment. It did confirm that the new trooper involved in the crash left the force two weeks later.

Records show the agency investigated the crash themselves and the trooper was not cited.