 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lietz v. Northern States Power Co.1/11/2005
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents because appellant failed to raise its claim within the statute of limitations established by Minn. Stat. § 541.051 (2002). We affirm.
FACTS
On December 11, 1998, respondent Cable Constructors, Inc. (CCI) was in the process of constructing a fiber-optic cable system for respondent Seren Innovations, Inc. (Seren) when it struck an underground gas line while installing an anchor for a utility pole. The system was designed by respondent Sirti, Ltd. (Sirti). Appellant Jaenty, Inc. sustained property damage to its building, a Taco John's restaurant. Appellant commenced a property-damage action against respondents on December 31, 2001. On April 21, 2004, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents. This appeal follows.
DECISION
"On an appeal from summary judgment, we ask two questions: (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law." State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). The interpretation of the applicability of a statute of limitations is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Sarafolean v. Kauffman, 547 N.W.2d 417, 419 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).
It is undisputed that appellant did not commence its action against respondents within the two-year statute of limitations for damages based on services or construction to improve real property set forth in Minn. Stat. § 541.051 (2002). Therefore, this appeal centers on the applicability of section 541.051 to the December 11, 1998 accident. Appellant contends that the placement of a utility pole anchor was construction activity, not an improvement to real property, thereby rendering section 541.051 inapplicable.
Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a) (2002) provides in pertinent part:
Except where fraud is involved, no action by any person in contract, tort, or otherwise to recover damages for any injury to property, real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained on account of the injury, shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, materials, or observation of construction or construction of the improvement to real property or against the owner of the real property more than two years after discovery of the injury . . . .
In construing an earlier version of this statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated an improvement is "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." Pac. Indem. Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 548, 554 (Minn. 1977) (quotation omitted). Fifteen years later this court elucidated the supreme court's definition by stating, " n order for an improvement to be a permanent addition to or betterment of real property, it must be 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), review denied (Minn. June 10, 1992).
Minnesota courts have applied the statute of limitations contained in Minn. Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(a), to a variety of situations. See generally Sartori v. Harnischfeger Corp., 432 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Minn. 1988)(concluding that overhead rail crane at a mining facility constituted an improvement)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|