Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
Phone: 612.333.3000
Fax: 612.333.8829
Bassford Remele is a full service litigation firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Founded in 1882, the firm represents local, national and international clients in all areas of civil litigation and dispute resolution.
Case Law Update
Date: April 16, 2010 — Minneapolis, MN
During the week of April 16, 2010, the Minnesota appellate courts released opinions on the following topics that may be of interest to our clients:
1.
Construction Law - Construction Defects - Statutes of Limitations
2.
3.
1. CONSTRUCTION LAW - CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS - STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
-
In an action regarding construction defects, roof-repair invoices can be used to establish the date of the property owner’s “discovery of the injury,” which triggers the running of the two-year statute of limitations for non-warranty claims. However, warranty claims are timely when the property owner forwards inspection reports to the contractor within the two-year limitations period.
In March 2006, Independent School District 347 submitted a demand for arbitration to the contractors and materials suppliers regarding roof leaks at Willmar High School, which had been completed in September 1994. The district alleged warranty and non-warranty claims. The contractors sought to stay the arbitration proceeding on grounds that the claims were barred by the two-year Minn. Stat. § 541.051 statutes of limitations on improvements to real property. The district court found the claims untimely and the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the non-warranty claims, which were subject to a two-year limitations period measured from time of “discovery of the injury,” were untimely. Repair invoices established that the school district knew it had to repair the roof leaks as early as 2002 and custodians had testified in depositions that they were aware of the problem before March 2004.
However, the Court held that the warranty claims, which were subject to a two-year statute of limitations measured from the time of “discovery of the breach,” were timely. This was because the earliest the claims could have accrued was in December 2004, when the school district forwarded an inspection report to two contractors. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of appeals to determine whether the ten-year statute of repose in § 541.051 barred the claims.
Day Masonry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 347, __ N.W.2d __, A08-929 (Minn. 4/15/10).
2. CONSTRUCTION LAW - NEGLIGENCE - “RETAINED CONTROL” DOCTRINE
-
A homeowner does not become a general contract or assume a duty to exercise supervisory control over a construction project by picking up loose or discarded nails and boards at the worksite.
A homeowner was sued for negligence after the man he hired died while replacing two old and possibly structurally unsound decks. The man, who had expertise in building and repairing decks, died when he was working alone on the project during a misty and drizzly day.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowner on grounds that any danger related to repairing the deck was known or obvious. The court further found that the homeowner owed no duty under the “retained control” doctrine because he merely acted as an interested homeowner by picking up loose nails and boards and observing the project’s progress.
In affirming summary judgment, the Minnesota Court of Appeals characterized the decedent as a specialist in deck repair over whom the homeowner had no control. The Court held that the homeowner did not act as a general contractor under the doctrine of retained control. The Court further held that any inherent risks in the project and the misty weather conditions were known or obvious and not of the sort a homeowner had a duty to anticipate.
Presby v. James, __ N.W.2d __, A09-1686 (Minn. Ct. App. 4/13/10).
3. PERSONAL JURISDICTION - INDEMNIFICATION - “VOUCHING”
-
An indemnitor who is “vouched” into an action on the basis of an indemnitee’s vicarious liability may be bound by the findings in that action when there is no conflict of interest between the parties, the indemnitee adequately represented the indemnitor’s interests, and procedural differences between the forums do not prejudice the indemnitor.
Supreme Pork, Inc. (a South Dakota corporation) bought two pressure washers from Master Blaster (another South Dakota corporation) for Supreme Pork’s hog-and-feed operation in Minnesota. Pipestone Plumbing & Heating (a Minnesota corporation) installed venting. After the venting was suspected for causing a fire two years later, Supreme Pork sued Master Blaster in South Dakota state court alleging that Master Blaster was vicariously liable for the fire. Master Blaster then made third-party claims against Pipestone. After Pipestone was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, Master Blaster tendered defense to Pipestone’s insurer but the tenders were refused. Subsequently a South Dakota jury found that Pipestone had caused 95% of the damages and judgment was entered against Master Blaster.
Master Blaster then sued Pipestone for indemnity in Minnesota. The Minnesota district court granted summary judgment in favor of Master Blaster on the doctrine of “vouching,” a centuries-old process similar to but largely replaced by tender of defense. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, noting that while “modern third-party pleading practice” had largely supplanted vouching, the doctrine still may be employed in certain situations such as when the “vouchee” is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the underlying action.
The Court of Appeals held that the doctrine could be applied when there is no conflict of interest between the indemnitor (i.e. Pipestone) and indemnitee (i.e. Master Blaster), the indemnitee adequately represented the indemnitor’s interests in the action, and procedural differences between the forums of the underlying and indemnity actions do not prejudice the indemnitor. The Court additionally rejected Pipestone’s argument that its right to constitutional due process was violated by holding it liable for the South Dakota judgment.
Master Blaster, Inc. v. Dammann, __ N.W.2d __, A09-1617 (Minn. Ct. App. 4/13/10).
Editorial Staff |
C. Lundberg, C. Morris, K. Putney, R.A. Williams, J.S. Andresen, M. Covin, S. Gustad, B. Sande, C. Hund, S. Sitek, T. Quick, D. Camarotto, K. Burke, J. Marquet, D. Turner, L. Pugh, M. Bradford, P. Semrow, and S. Pearson |
Writer this Week: |