394 F.Supp.3d 944
D. Minnesota2019Background
- MCI owns underground fiber-optic cables that were severed on April 14, 2015, when Maverick Cutting & Breaking (a subcontractor working under Bolander’s supervision) sawcut pavement at a bridge replacement project in St. Paul.
- The City contracted Kraemer as general contractor; Kraemer subcontracted work to Bolander, which subcontracted pavement removal to Maverick.
- MCI sued Maverick in 2017; MCI sued Bolander in this separate action filed October 22, 2018 (over three years after the incident), alleging trespass, negligence, statutory excavator liability, and breach of contract/third-party beneficiary claims.
- Bolander moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on statute-of-limitations grounds, invoking Minn. Stat. § 541.051’s two-year bar for claims “arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property.”
- The court assumed the pavement removal/sawcutting was an “improvement to real property” (as an integral part of the bridge replacement) but held MCI’s injury did not arise from a “defective and unsafe condition” of that improvement; instead the injury resulted from allegedly negligent operational conduct.
- Conclusion: Bolander’s motion to dismiss was denied because § 541.051 does not bar claims that arise from negligent conduct rather than from a defective/unsafe condition of an improvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pavement sawcutting is an “improvement to real property” under Minn. Stat. § 541.051 | Sawcutting/pavement removal is demolition activity and not an "improvement." | Pavement removal was integral to the bridge replacement, so it is an improvement under Lederman. | Court: Pavement removal/sawcutting is an improvement (integral to an overall improvement). |
| Whether MCI’s claims “arise out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement” within § 541.051 | The injury from the sawcutting is covered by § 541.051 and thus time-barred. | The injury arose from negligent conduct, not from a defective condition of the improvement; § 541.051 therefore does not apply. | Court: Held the injury did not arise from a defective/unsafe condition but from negligent conduct; § 541.051 does not apply. |
| Whether Lietz and related precedent broaden § 541.051 to reach negligent construction activities | MCI urges narrow reading that excludes demolition/pavement removal. | Bolander points to Lederman and broader readings of “improvement” post-Lietz. | Court: Acknowledged Lietz allows negligence that creates a defective condition, but here no defective condition existed—only negligent operation—so statute still does not apply. |
| Whether the complaint is time-barred under § 541.051 (two-year limit) | The complaint was filed after two years and is therefore barred if § 541.051 applies. | If § 541.051 does not apply (because no defective condition), the statute-of-limitations defense fails. | Court: Because § 541.051 does not apply, plaintiff’s claims survive; motion to dismiss denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lietz v. N. States Power Co., 718 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 2006) (defines “improvement to real property” and recognizes negligent installation can create a defective, unsafe condition)
- Lederman v. Cragun’s Pine Beach Resort, 247 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2001) (treats temporary but integral parts of a larger construction as improvements under Minnesota law)
- Brandt v. Hallwood Mgmt. Co., 560 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (section 541.051 inapplicable where subcontractor conduct, not condition of improvement, caused injury)
- Wiita v. Potlatch Corp., 492 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) (statute inapplicable where negligent operation—rather than a defective condition of an improvement—caused the injury)