In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation
806 N.W.2d 820
Minn.2011Background
- Bridge collapse on August 1, 2007 at the I-35W crossing; Swift legal actions against URS, PCI, and Jacques alleging negligence, contract claims, and damages.
- Jacobs’ predecessor Sverdrup designed the Bridge; Sverdrup later merged into Jacobs, making Jacobs a successor in interest.
- State pursued compensation under 2008 statutes to reimburse survivor-claimants for paid benefits and expenses.
- Compensation statutes authorize the State to recover payments from third parties that caused or contributed to the catastrophe; include § 3.7394, subd. 5(a).
- Prior statute of repose (541.051, with earlier 1980 version) had extinguished related claims; 2007 amendments allegedly revived those claims; districts and appellate courts initially ruled for revival.
- Court ultimately held that the 2007 amendments retroactively revive the State’s statutory reimbursement claim against Jacobs without violating due process or impairing contracts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive revival of action for contractual indemnity | State argues 2007 amendments revive extinguished contractual indemnity claim against Jacobs. | Jacobs contends repose extinguished the claim; amendments do not revive. | No revival for contractual indemnity under 541.051 prior version. |
| Retroactive revival of statutory reimbursement under 3.7394(5)(a) | State asserts 3.7394(5)(a) revives the reimbursement claim against Jacobs. | Jacobs argues no revival due to repose and constitutional limits. | Notwithstanding clause retroactively revives statutory reimbursement against Jacobs. |
| Due process challenge to retroactive revival | States rational basis supports revival; no due process violation. | Jacobs asserts protected property interest in statute of repose; revival infringes that interest. | Retroactive revival satisfies rational basis; no due process violation. |
| Contract impairment under Energy Reserves framework | Reimbursement clause does not impair Sverdrup contract rights. | Sverdrup contract immunity defenses could be affected. | Not a substantial impairment under Energy Reserves test. |
| Pierringer releases and voluntary payments doctrine | Notwithstanding clause negates Pierringer/voluntary payment limits. | Releases should bar reimbursement. | Not barred due to notwithstanding clause; State may seek reimbursement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weston v. McWilliams & Assoc., 716 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. 2006) (statute of repose vs. limitations; substantial impairment analysis guidance)
- Donaldson v. Chase Secs. Corp., 216 Minn. 269, 13 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1943) (statutes of limitations; retroactive application not a vested right)
- Chase Sec. Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1945) (federal due process standards for retroactive legislation)
- Sartori v. Hamischfeger Corp., 432 N.W.2d 448 (Minn. 1988) (identical due process analysis between state and federal constitutions)
- Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kan. Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1983) (three-part test for contract impairment due to legislation)
- Kipp v. Johnson, 31 Minn. 360, 17 N.W. 957 (Minn. 1884) (no vested rights in exemption from forms of action; remedial statutes)