In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation, 806 N.W.2d 811

The I-35W Bridge collapse occurred on August 1, 2007, in Minneapolis, leading to multiple lawsuits against URS for bridge-related damages.
URS had performed inspection work on the Bridge under State contracts, and URS then sought indemnity/contribution from Jacobs, predecessor Sverdrup allegedly responsible for the design.
Sverdrup designed and construct plans for the Bridge; construction substantially completed in 1967, with Sverdrup later merging into Jacobs.
Historically, Minnesota’s 541.051 set repose and accrual rules; the 1980 amendment extended repose to 15 years, and the 1988 amendment set accrual for contribution/indemnity upon final settlement or judgment.
The 1980 and 1986 amendments eventually limited or extinguished potential contribution claims against Jacobs by dates in the 1980s and early 1980s, depending on substantial completion timelines.
In 2007, the Legislature enacted amendments (two-year statute of limitations for contribution; different accrual trigger) in response to Weston v. McWilliams, raising questions of retroactivity and revival of extinguished claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do the 2007 amendments retroactively revive extinguished contribution claims?	URS contends amendments revive its pre-extinguished action.	Jacobs argues amendments do not revive time-barred claims.	No retroactive revival; URS not allowed to proceed.
What version of 541.051 governs, and does it bar URS’s contribution claim?	URS relies on 2007 amendments to keep action alive.	Jacobs maintains pre-1980 repose extinguished the claim.	1980 version extinguished the contribution action by 1982; not revived.
Are 2007 amendments retroactive under Minnesota law, specifically 645.21 and Gomon v. Northland?	URS asserts clear retroactive revival via continuous retroactivity.	Jacobs argues no clear retroactive revival; need clear intent.	Amendments are not clearly retroactive to revive extinguished claims.
Did the accrual rule under the 2007 amendments affect URS’s time to sue?	Accrual within two-year limitations keeps URS viable if accrual occurred after 2007 amendments.	No accrual under prior repose; time-barred.	Accrual did occur within 2007 framework, but revival did not apply retroactively.
Is there a required common liability between URS and Jacobs to support a contribution action?	Common liability exists as joint tortfeasors to plaintiffs.	No common liability would exist if repose extinguished the action.	Court did not reach this issue because retroactivity failed; common liability not addressed.

Weston v. McWilliams & Assoc., Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. 2006) (contribution claims barred if not accrued within repose period)
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 548 (Minn. 1977) (constitutionality of 541.051; rational basis for class; repose provisions)
Lovgren v. Peoples Elec. Co., 380 N.W.2d 791 (Minn. 1986) (effective date of 1980 amendments for repose provisions)
Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, 645 N.W.2d 413 (Minn. 2002) (revival of time-barred claims requires clear legislative intent)
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., 786 N.W.2d 890 (Minn.App. 2010) (appellate court on retroactivity and collateral issues)
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litig., 787 N.W.2d 643 (Minn.App. 2010) (court reasoned about retroactivity and amendments)