A wrongful death suit filed in Ramsey County District Court presented an uncommon procedural challenge: the defendant had previously been found not guilty by reason of insanity in a related criminal proceeding, leaving plaintiff Phanny Phay's legal team with scant precedent for pursuing civil accountability [1]. Minnesota civil law does permit wrongful death claims independent of criminal outcomes, but the intersection of that doctrine with a formal NGRI finding had rarely, if ever, been litigated to verdict [1]. St. Paul attorney Megan Curtis led the plaintiff's case through those threshold legal questions before the matter reached the jury [1].
On May 7, 2026, the Ramsey County jury returned a verdict of $17 million in favor of Phanny Phay [1]. The award was entirely compensatory; no punitive component was reported [1]. Because the underlying legal theory required the jury to assess civil liability against a person whom a prior court had determined lacked criminal responsibility, counsel on both sides had to address whether, and on what standard, a factfinder could attribute fault in the absence of a criminal conviction [1].
The $17 million verdict may carry weight beyond the immediate parties [1]. Civil suits against NGRI defendants are rare enough that the outcome could inform how Minnesota courts, and potentially courts in other jurisdictions, frame jury instructions, burden-of-proof standards, and damages analysis when criminal acquittal rests on an insanity finding rather than on the merits [1]. Curtis described the result as fulfilling on a level distinct from other verdicts, a characterization that reflects the absence of a guiding body of case law in this area [1].
Post-trial motions and any appellate posture had not been publicly reported as of the verdict date. Given the novelty of the legal theory, an appeal addressing the viability of wrongful death liability against NGRI defendants would not be unexpected, and any resulting appellate opinion would carry precedential significance in Minnesota [1].