 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rakowski v. Cold Spring Granite Co.7/26/2005
at it constructed the altar, and for purposes of its motion for summary judgment, it also concedes that it installed the altar. But the parties disagree on whether the altar was "an improvement to real property" and whether the statute of repose is applicable.
When interpreting a statute, we give meaning to the plain language of the statute "without resort to technical legal constructions of its terms." Pac. Indem. Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 548, 554 (Minn. 1977). Minnesota courts have adopted a "common-sense" interpretation of what is meant by "an improvement to real property," defining it as "a permanent addition to or betterment of real property that enhances its capital value and that involves the expenditure of labor or money and is designed to make the property more useful or valuable as distinguished from ordinary repairs." Id. at 553-54 (quotation omitted) (concluding that a furnace was an improvement to real property, in part, because it "was connected to numerous electric cables, oil pipes, and ducts").
An improvement is "a permanent addition to or betterment of real property" if it is "integral to and incorporated into the building or structure on the property." Ritter v. Abbey-Etna Mach. Co., 483 N.W.2d 91, 93 (Minn. App. 1992) (concluding that steel tube mills used to form sheet metal into cylindrical shapes were not improvements to real property because the mills were "essentially production machinery, not an integral part of building"), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1992). But if "an item does not permanently alter real property, it may not constitute an improvement, and injuries arising from the item are not time barred by the statute." Wiita v. Potlatch Corp., 492 N.W.2d 270, 272 (Minn. App. 1992) (noting that a wall was an improvement to real property but concluding that the cement blocks being used to construct the wall were not improvements to real property). Items that Minnesota courts have found to be improvements to real property include panic doors, Taney v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 624, 673 N.W.2d 497, 504 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004); a storm sewer system, Nolan & Nolan v. City of Eagan, 673 N.W.2d 487, 496 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Mar. 16, 2004); a hard-wired smoke detector, Patton v. Yarrington, 472 N.W.2d 157, 160 (Minn. App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Aug. 29, 1991); an unfinished stairway, O'Connor v. M.A. Mortenson Co., 424 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. July 28, 1988); and permanently installed electrical cables, Kemp v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 390 N.W.2d 848, 850-51 (Minn. App. 1986).
Here, the altar was attached to the church wall with an L-bracket and a cinch screw. The installation of the altar did not permanently change the church. The anchor with which the altar was attached to the wall was intended merely to keep the top-heavy altar from falling over. Unlike the items listed above, the altar was not connected to any of the building's systems nor was it integrated into the church's structure. For these reasons, we conclude that the altar was not "incorporated into the building or structure on the property," that it did not permanently change the church, and, therefore, that it is not a "permanent addition to or betterment of real property."
Because the altar was not a "permanent addition to or betterment of real property," it is not an improvement to real property under Pacific Indemnity. See Pac. Indem., 260 N.W.2d at 554; Ritter, 483 N.W.2d at 93. We therefore conclude that the district court erred by applying the statute of repose and by granting Cold Spring's motion for summary judgment. Having concluded that the district court erred by finding that
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|