In March 2026, a Minnesota jury delivered a landmark $17 million wrongful death verdict for the family of Phanny Phay — a man killed in 2017 by Andre Duprey, who was never criminally convicted because he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The verdict, reported prominently by Minnesota Lawyer in May 2026, has drawn national attention from legal scholars and grieving families alike. It stands as one of the first major publicized civil wrongful death wins against a defendant who walked free from criminal court on an insanity acquittal. For families navigating the intersection of mental illness, violence, and justice, this case answers a question many never thought to ask: can you sue someone for wrongful death civil liability when they were found not guilty by reason of insanity? The answer, as the Phay family proved, is yes.
What “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” Actually Means — And What It Doesn’t
A criminal acquittal based on insanity is widely misunderstood by the public. Under Minnesota Statute §611.026, a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) if, at the time of the act, a mental illness caused them to be incapable of knowing the nature of the act or understanding that it was wrong. In Duprey’s case, he was charged with second-degree murder for killing Phanny Phay but succeeded in establishing this defense at trial. The criminal justice system then channeled him into civil commitment proceedings rather than prison.
What an NGI verdict does not do is erase the underlying act. Duprey still killed Phanny Phay. The acquittal simply means the state could not punish him criminally because of his mental state. It says nothing about whether his estate or assets can be held financially accountable in civil court. This distinction — between criminal punishment and civil accountability — is the legal foundation that made the Phay family’s lawsuit possible and that makes wrongful death civil liability not guilty by reason of insanity cases a legitimate, if rarely pursued, avenue for families. Reinforcing this framework, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in 2024 that a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity constitutes an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes — meaning the state cannot retry the defendant criminally, but that protection has no bearing whatsoever on a separate civil wrongful death action.
The Two-Standard System: Why Civil Court Sets a Lower Bar
The most important legal concept families must understand is that criminal and civil courts use entirely different standards of proof. Criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt — historically interpreted as roughly 90–95% certainty. Civil wrongful death liability requires only a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not (greater than 50%) that the defendant caused the death. These are not interchangeable thresholds, and an NGI acquittal in criminal court creates no legal bar to a civil finding of liability.
The O.J. Simpson civil liability precedent established this principle for a broad American audience. Simpson was acquitted criminally in 1995 but found civilly liable for $33.5 million the following year. The same logic applies directly to NGI defendants. In the Phay case, St. Paul attorneys were able to present the same underlying facts to a civil jury and meet the far lower preponderance standard without needing to overcome the insanity defense, which is a purely criminal doctrine with no counterpart in civil tort law. A civil jury is not asked whether the defendant deserves criminal punishment — it is asked only whether the defendant’s conduct more likely than not caused the death and what compensation the family deserves.
This structural gap between the two systems is precisely why families of victims in NGI cases are not left entirely without recourse. The criminal system’s inability to convict does not translate into the civil system’s inability to compensate. The evidentiary record from the criminal proceeding — medical testimony, forensic evidence, witness accounts — can be introduced and reframed through the civil preponderance lens, giving plaintiffs’ attorneys substantial material with which to build a wrongful death case.
How Minnesota Calculates Wrongful Death Damages Without a Criminal Conviction
Under Minnesota Statute §573.02, wrongful death damages are calculated to compensate the deceased’s next of kin for the pecuniary loss — including loss of financial support, loss of advice and counsel, loss of companionship, and the reasonable value of the services the decedent would have provided. Minnesota does not cap wrongful death damages the way some states do, which gives juries considerable flexibility in large verdicts like the $17 million award in the Phay case.
Because there is no criminal conviction to anchor a civil case, attorneys must build the damages picture from scratch using forensic economic experts. These professionals calculate the present value of the decedent’s projected lifetime earnings, benefits, and household contributions. In cases involving younger decedents with long work-life expectancies, these projections can be substantial. Beyond economics, grief and loss of companionship damages require careful documentation — journals, photographs, testimony from family members — to translate human loss into a figure a jury can evaluate.
For context, data from California — one of the nation’s most active wrongful death litigation environments — shows that as of 2025, the average wrongful death verdict reached approximately $973,054, with a median around $294,728. Minnesota’s $17 million Phay verdict far exceeds those benchmarks, reflecting both the severity of the loss and the absence of statutory damage caps. Families in states with caps face a very different calculus. Colorado, for instance, increased its non-economic damages cap to $2,125,000 effective January 1, 2025, with inflation adjustments beginning in 2028 — a meaningful expansion but still well below what an uncapped Minnesota jury can award.
The absence of a criminal conviction also means there is no restitution order, no probation condition, and no parole requirement linking the defendant to compensation. Everything the family receives must come through the civil judgment itself, which makes aggressive damages advocacy at trial all the more critical.
Why These Cases Are Rare — And Why the Phay Verdict Matters
Civil wrongful death suits against NGI defendants are vanishingly rare for several practical reasons. First, defendants who succeed on an insanity defense frequently have limited assets — they are often individuals whose mental illness predates and explains their indigence. Winning a judgment against an uncollectable defendant is a hollow victory, and contingency-fee attorneys must weigh the probability of actual recovery before committing years of litigation resources. Second, the legal novelty of these cases means fewer attorneys have experience navigating them, which creates access barriers for families who might otherwise pursue civil accountability.
Third, families themselves often do not know this option exists. The criminal proceedings — with their heavy media coverage, courtroom drama, and ultimate NGI verdict — tend to feel like the final word. Many families close the chapter there, unaware that civil court offers a parallel and independent path to justice.
The Phay verdict matters for all of these reasons. It demonstrates that a Minnesota jury will hold an NGI defendant civilly liable when the evidence supports it, and it signals to other families — and to the plaintiffs’ bar — that these cases can be won. The $17 million award also sends a message about the value Minnesota juries place on human life and family loss, regardless of what the criminal system was able to accomplish. Nationally, high-profile wrongful death settlements have continued to reshape public understanding of civil accountability in 2026. The City of Seattle’s $29 million settlement in February 2026 — one of the largest police vehicle-related wrongful death settlements in recent U.S. history — illustrates how broadly civil wrongful death law reaches, from individual NGI defendants to municipal governments, and how substantial the financial stakes can be when courts and institutions are held accountable for preventable deaths.
What Families Need to Know Before Filing a Civil Wrongful Death Claim Against an NGI Defendant
If your family is considering a civil wrongful death claim against a defendant who was found not guilty by reason of insanity, the following considerations are essential before you engage counsel or commit to litigation.
Minnesota Wrongful Death Damages: Key Components at a Glance
- Loss of financial support: Present value of the decedent’s projected lifetime earnings and benefits
- Loss of household services: Monetary value of childcare, home maintenance, and other contributions
- Loss of advice, counsel, and guidance: Particularly significant for minor children who lose a parent
- Loss of companionship and society: Compensation for the relational and emotional void left by the death
- Funeral and burial expenses: Documented costs recoverable by the estate
Confirm the Statute of Limitations Has Not Expired
Minnesota’s wrongful death statute of limitations is generally three years from the date of death under Minn. Stat. §573.02. However, the criminal proceedings in NGI cases frequently extend for years, and families may not learn the full picture of their civil options until after the criminal case concludes. If your loved one’s death occurred years ago, you must determine immediately whether the limitations period has run. Other states have different rules — and some are changing. Louisiana, for example, extended its wrongful death and survival action prescriptive periods effective August 1, 2025, to the longer of one year from death or two years from the date of injury, giving some families additional time they previously lacked. Know your state’s current rules and act promptly.
Conduct a Thorough Asset Investigation
Before filing, your attorney should conduct a thorough investigation of the NGI defendant’s assets. This includes real property, bank accounts, investment accounts, inheritance expectations, life insurance policies, and any business interests. In cases where the defendant is institutionalized, assets may be held in trust or managed by a guardian. If the defendant is effectively judgment-proof, the litigation calculus changes significantly. Some cases reveal insurance coverage — homeowner’s policies or umbrella policies — that can provide a recovery source even when the defendant has limited personal assets.
Engage Forensic Economic Experts Early
The absence of a criminal conviction means your damages case rests entirely on civil evidence. Engage a forensic economist early in the process to begin modeling the decedent’s lifetime earnings, benefits, and household contributions. These projections form the quantitative backbone of your wrongful death claim and are essential for mediation, settlement negotiations, and trial. Do not wait until litigation is well underway to retain this expertise — the earlier the modeling begins, the more thoroughly it can be stress-tested and refined.
Prepare for a Legally Novel Process
Because civil wrongful death suits against NGI defendants are rare, you should expect procedural and evidentiary disputes that would not arise in a more conventional case. Defense counsel may argue that the civil court should defer to the criminal court’s insanity finding, or that certain evidence from the criminal proceedings is inadmissible in civil court. Your attorney must be prepared to address these arguments head-on, drawing on the clear legal principle that the insanity defense is a criminal doctrine with no civil tort equivalent. Judges in these cases may themselves be navigating novel questions, so thorough briefing and case law research are critical.
Understand the Emotional Dimension
Pursuing a civil wrongful death case against an NGI defendant means revisiting the facts of your loved one’s death in granular legal detail — often years after the criminal proceedings have concluded. For many families, the criminal trial was already an exhausting and retraumatizing experience. A civil case will require depositions, expert testimony about the manner of death, and potentially a full trial. Before committing to litigation, families should have honest conversations with their attorneys about the emotional costs of the process and ensure they have adequate mental health support in place throughout.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a family sue for wrongful death if the defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity?
Yes. A not guilty by reason of insanity verdict is a criminal acquittal that bars further criminal prosecution. It has no effect on civil liability. Civil courts apply the preponderance of the evidence standard — more likely than not — which is entirely independent of the criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. The insanity defense is a purely criminal doctrine and has no recognized counterpart in civil tort law. The Phay family’s $17 million verdict in 2026 is the most prominent recent example of a family successfully pursuing this path.
What is the difference between criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt and civil preponderance-of-the-evidence standards?
Beyond a reasonable doubt requires the fact-finder to be approximately 90–95% certain of guilt before a criminal conviction can stand. Preponderance of the evidence requires only that the plaintiff’s version of events be more likely true than not — a greater than 50% probability. This lower threshold is why defendants acquitted in criminal court can be found liable in civil court for the same underlying conduct, as the O.J. Simpson case demonstrated in 1996 and as the Phay case reaffirmed in 2026.
How are wrongful death damages calculated in Minnesota when there is no criminal conviction?
Minnesota wrongful death damages under Minn. Stat. §573.02 compensate next of kin for pecuniary loss, including lost financial support, lost household services, lost advice and counsel, and lost companionship. Forensic economists calculate the present value of the decedent’s projected lifetime earnings and contributions. Minnesota imposes no statutory cap on wrongful death damages, giving juries broad discretion. The $17 million Phay verdict illustrates the scale of awards that Minnesota juries can return when the evidence of loss is compelling and the facts support it.
Why do attorneys rarely pursue wrongful death civil liability claims against NGI defendants?
The primary barrier is collectability. NGI defendants frequently have limited assets, making a civil judgment difficult or impossible to satisfy even if liability is established. Contingency-fee attorneys must assess whether a potential recovery justifies years of litigation investment. Secondary barriers include the legal novelty of these cases, the emotional complexity of the process for client families, and simple lack of awareness that the civil option exists. The Phay verdict may encourage more attorneys and families to explore this path in cases where the defendant has meaningful assets or insurance coverage.
Does a wrongful death civil judgment affect the NGI defendant’s commitment or release from a psychiatric facility?
No. Civil wrongful death judgments are financial instruments — they establish a monetary obligation from the defendant to the plaintiff family. They have no legal effect on civil commitment proceedings, which are governed by separate mental health statutes and adjudicated in a different legal forum. A defendant’s release from or continued commitment to a psychiatric facility is determined entirely by mental health evaluations and commitment law, not by the outcome of a civil wrongful death case. Families should understand that winning a civil judgment does not influence what happens to the defendant within the mental health system.
Margaret Whitfield is a Wrongful Death and Survivor Rights Advisor with extensive knowledge of personal injury law and settlement values across the United States. With years of experience analyzing wrongful death claims only (high value) cases, Margaret helps injury victims understand their legal rights and the potential value of their claims. Margaret is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.