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.
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 Megan Curtis and Paul Applebaum argued the civil standard before a jury that ultimately agreed: by a preponderance of the evidence, Duprey caused Phanny Phay’s death and the family was entitled to compensation. The criminal acquittal was legally irrelevant to that determination. This is precisely why wrongful death civil liability not guilty by reason of insanity cases can succeed even when the criminal system produces no conviction.
How Minnesota Calculates Wrongful Death Damages Without a Criminal Conviction
Minnesota’s wrongful death damages framework does not require a criminal conviction as a predicate. The jury instruction framework — historically rooted in what courts have called a pecuniary-loss analysis — guides jurors through a structured evaluation of what the deceased would have contributed to survivors. Minnesota removed explicit “pecuniary loss” limiting language from its jury instructions in 1999, broadening what juries can consider and award. The modern framework, reflected in CIVJIG 91.75, asks jurors to assess earnings, financial support, out-of-pocket expenses related to the death, and — critically — the counsel, guidance, aid, advice, comfort, and protection the decedent would have provided over a lifetime.
In practical terms, this means damages calculations in a case like Phanny Phay’s consider the deceased’s age at death, health, education level, established career trajectory, and the actual financial and emotional dependency of surviving family members. Expert witnesses play a pivotal role: Bureau of Labor Statistics occupational earnings data is routinely used by forensic economists to establish lifetime earning capacity baselines. Vocational experts testify about career progression and household services value. These same methodologies apply whether or not the defendant was convicted of a crime — the calculation focuses on the victim’s economic and relational contributions, not the defendant’s legal status.
One notable point for families: life insurance proceeds paid to survivors typically do not offset a wrongful death award, meaning families may collect both. Workers’ compensation and Social Security survivor benefits may reduce certain damage categories in some circumstances, but the core verdict amount generally stands independent of those collateral sources.
Minnesota Wrongful Death Damages: Key Components at a Glance
| Damage Category | What Juries Consider | Common Evidence Used |
|---|---|---|
| Lost Earnings & Support | Projected lifetime income minus personal consumption | Pay records, BLS wage data, forensic economist testimony |
| Household Services | Value of cooking, childcare, home maintenance | Vocational expert testimony, published replacement-cost studies |
| Counsel & Guidance | Parental, spousal, or relational guidance over time | Family testimony, life expectancy tables |
| Comfort & Protection | Emotional support and security provided to survivors | Survivor testimony, psychological expert opinion |
| Out-of-Pocket Expenses | Funeral, medical, and related costs caused by the death | Bills, receipts, medical records |
Why These Cases Are Rare — And Why the Phay Verdict Matters
Attorney Megan Curtis, one of the St. Paul lawyers who secured the $17 million Phay verdict, noted candidly that “little case law exists on wrongful death cases against people found not guilty by reason of insanity,” and that lawyers rarely pursue such claims unless the defendant has assets. This is the frank reality of wrongful death civil liability not guilty by reason of insanity litigation: even a landmark $17 million verdict is only as valuable as the defendant’s ability to pay it.
When an NGI defendant is acquitted, they are typically committed to a secure psychiatric facility under civil commitment proceedings. Commitment limits their ability to generate income, accumulate assets, or maintain insurance coverage. An individual in long-term civil commitment may have minimal collectible assets — no wages, no real property, no liquid savings. This is why experienced wrongful death attorneys conduct an asset investigation before filing suit. If a defendant has homeowner’s insurance, an umbrella policy, or inherited assets, collection becomes feasible. Without such assets, even a multi-million dollar verdict may be largely uncollectible in practice. Families considering this path should understand the distinction between winning a judgment and collecting on it.
The Phay case matters beyond its dollar figure. It establishes a visible precedent — reported publicly in 2026 — that juries will hold NGI defendants civilly accountable when presented with clear evidence of causation and loss. It signals to the legal community that wrongful death civil liability not guilty by reason of insanity claims are viable, and it may encourage more attorneys to evaluate asset profiles before declining these cases outright. For families who have pursued justice through criminal courts only to watch it slip away on an insanity acquittal, this verdict is a reminder that a parallel legal avenue exists. If you are evaluating a different type of claim, a personal injury settlement calculator can help you understand general compensation ranges for injury claims.
What Families Need to Know Before Filing a Civil Wrongful Death Claim Against an NGI Defendant
The Phay case offers a practical roadmap for families considering civil action after an NGI acquittal. The following considerations are essential before moving forward.
Confirm the Statute of Limitations Has Not Expired
Minnesota’s wrongful death statute imposes strict filing deadlines. Missing these windows eliminates the right to sue regardless of how strong the case is on the merits. Families should consult an attorney immediately after an NGI verdict — not months or years later — to preserve their legal options. The Minnesota wrongful death statute (Minn. Stat. §573.02) governs who may bring the action and within what timeframe.
Conduct a Thorough Asset Investigation
Before investing years of litigation, experienced wrongful death attorneys investigate the defendant’s asset profile: real property records, insurance policy histories, trust interests, and inheritance prospects. In the Phay case, assets apparently existed sufficient to make the lawsuit viable. Families should ask their attorney directly: “What does this defendant own, and can a judgment realistically be collected?”
Engage Forensic Economic Experts Early
Damages in these cases must be built from the ground up with expert testimony. Bureau of Labor Statistics employment projections provide nationally recognized earning capacity baselines that forensic economists use in conjunction with the decedent’s specific employment history and educational attainment. Engaging these experts early — during case development, not just trial preparation — strengthens every element of the damages case. Fatal incidents involving motor vehicle crashes sometimes intersect with these claims, and families in those circumstances may find it useful to reference a car accident settlement calculator to understand typical compensation ranges.
Prepare for a Legally Novel Process
As attorney Curtis noted, there is little developed case law in this area. That means litigation may involve threshold legal challenges — motions arguing that an NGI acquittal bars civil suit, or that the standard of proof should be elevated. Families and their attorneys must be prepared to litigate those preliminary questions before ever reaching a jury. The Phay verdict demonstrates those challenges can be overcome, but preparation and experienced counsel are essential.
Understand the Emotional Dimension
Civil wrongful death litigation against an NGI defendant requires families to engage repeatedly with evidence of the killing, the defendant’s mental illness, and the criminal proceedings — often years after the original trauma. The legal process can be retraumatizing. Families should build support systems and understand realistically that trials of this nature, while legally achievable, are emotionally demanding in ways that differ from more conventional wrongful death litigation.
The $17 million verdict for Phanny Phay’s family in 2026 is more than a financial outcome. It is proof that wrongful death civil liability not guilty by reason of insanity is a real legal mechanism — not a theoretical one — that families can use to achieve accountability when the criminal system cannot deliver a conviction. The law has always recognized that two different systems can reach two different conclusions about the same act. For the Phay family, the civil system delivered the justice the criminal system could not.
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 (NGI) verdict in criminal court does not bar a civil wrongful death lawsuit. The civil system uses a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard — more likely than not — rather than the criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. The 2026 Phanny Phay case in Minnesota, which resulted in a $17 million verdict against criminally acquitted defendant Andre Duprey, confirms that civil wrongful death liability can be established even when no criminal conviction exists.
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 virtually certain — historically interpreted as roughly 90–95% confidence — that the defendant committed the act. Preponderance of the evidence requires only that it is more likely than not, meaning greater than 50% probability, that the defendant caused the death. Because wrongful death civil liability uses the lower standard, an NGI acquittal does not prevent a civil jury from finding the defendant liable based on the same underlying facts.
How are wrongful death damages calculated in Minnesota when there is no criminal conviction?
Minnesota wrongful death damages are calculated based on the loss to surviving family members, not the defendant’s criminal status. Under the framework reflected in CIVJIG 91.75, juries consider the deceased’s projected lifetime earnings, household services value, financial support to dependents, and the counsel, guidance, comfort, and protection the decedent would have provided. Forensic economists and vocational experts testify using Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the decedent’s employment history, age, health, and education. A criminal conviction — or its absence — does not change this calculation.
Why do attorneys rarely pursue wrongful death civil liability claims against NGI defendants?
The primary barrier is collectability. When a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are typically committed to a secure psychiatric facility under civil commitment proceedings, which severely limits their ability to earn income or accumulate assets. A multi-million dollar verdict is only valuable if the defendant has assets — such as real property, insurance coverage, or inherited wealth — from which the judgment can be satisfied. Attorney Megan Curtis, who secured the 2026 Phay verdict, noted that lawyers rarely pursue these claims unless the defendant has assets, and that little case law exists in this area.
Does a wrongful death civil judgment affect the NGI defendant’s commitment or release from a psychiatric facility?
No. A civil wrongful death judgment is a financial liability imposed on the defendant’s estate or assets — it does not affect the separate civil commitment proceedings that follow an NGI verdict. Commitment duration is determined by psychiatric evaluations and judicial review under mental health statutes, entirely independent of any civil court judgment. A family winning a wrongful death verdict against an NGI defendant has no legal mechanism to use that verdict to extend or influence the defendant’s commitment status.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for guidance specific to your situation.
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.